Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

PAKISTAN BILL

Mr. Secretary Jenkins, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Rees, and Mr. Alexander Lyon presented a Bill to amend the Pakistan Act 1973 so as to extend the voting rights of certain persons who, by virtue of that Act, ceased to be British subjects; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 10th June and to be printed [Bill 56].

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn— [Mr. Walter Harrison.]

TEACHERS' PAY

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you, but yesterday afternoon, at the end of the debate on the Whitsuntide Adjournment, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
I am very happy to be able to tell my hon Friend "—
that is myself—
that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be making an extremely important announcement tomorrow about teachers' salaries in general."
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May 1974; Vol. 874; c. 672] 
Can you inform me whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make that statement?

Mr. Speaker: I have no information about that.

CANALS, WEST MIDLANDS

11.5 a.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising a problem which is causing a great deal of concern in the West Midlands and elsewhere.
There are about 2,000 miles of canals in the United Kingdom. This asset is greatly under-used, and has been neglected during recent years. I am glad to note the increasing attention that is being given to the need to improve these canals and to make use of them for transport.
I am concerned about the 200 miles or so of canals in the West Midlands and the Black Country in particular. I understand that there are more canals in the Black Country than there are in Venice. We have all heard about the problems of the canals and waterways in Venice; they have been much publicised. There has not been nearly as much publicity about the canals in the Black Country. I hope that this debate will help to focus the attention of the Government and opinion generally on the problem. It has been too long neglected.
There are three aspects to which I wish to refer: first, safety; second, amenity; third, economic viability. In recent years many young children have died from drowning because they have been able to gain access to unprotected and overgrown canals. That is deplorable. Last year alone five young children died from drowning in Walsall. Those young lives could have been saved if the canals that are unsupervised had had sufficient fencing. They could have been saved if the waterways had been brought up to good conditions and had been supervised by wardens. They could have been saved if action had been taken to improve the canals.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced, in answer to a Question of mine, that a committee of inquiry into safety in inland waterways is to be set up. I hope that that inquiry will be able to focus attention on the dangers.
But there is no need for us to wait for that inquiry for action to be taken on improving our canals, particularly in


the West Midlands. Those canals are unsupervised because nobody seems to be able to take a direct interest in their supervision. The British Waterways Board has done an excellent job in certain localities, but in other areas disused canals have been left neglected. They have become eyesores, dumps for rubbish, and they are a danger to health and hygiene and to life itself.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who is to reply to the debate, will be able to give us some indication of what will be done in the very near future to increase safety standards around canals. I propose that, as an emergency measure, special grants be made available to the authorities concerned to enable adequate fencing to be built around the canals that are disused and neglected, and that the fencing should be at least as good as that along railway lines. It is as dangerous for children to play around these neglected canals as it is for them to play on railway lines.
The second aspect of the subject that is of concern is amenity. In the West Midlands we have some very attractive canal improvements, particularly one recently completed in Warley. That is an example of what can be done. I believe that, with improvement, canals could become good recreational centres for boating, walking and other activities.
It is probably better for the canals to be kept as waterways rather than being filled in, because the cost of filling in is considerable. I believe that it works out at about £200,000 per mile. If all the canals were filled in, a new drainage system would have to be installed, which in the West Midlands could cost as much as £20 million. Therefore, on cost grounds alone it would seem to be wise to keep the canals as waterways. Indeed, if they are improved, their asset value to the environment could be considerable.
I am told that there are some 290,000 anglers in the West Midlands. I am amazed by that figure. Quite where they go to fish, I do not know, bearing in mind how many of the rivers are polluted. But if the canals could be cleaned up, they could be stocked with fish, and that would give an attractive recreation to people who wish to fish in the area.
But many of the canals are polluted, and I should like the Minister to say what is being done about pollution. I read an article in the  Observer by Mr. Smith some time ago when he gave the astounding information that Wolverhampton Corporation had an agreement to discharge untreated sewage into the Wolverhampton main canal. I hope that that is not correct. If it is, I hope that that practice will be discontinued and adequate sums spent on a proper sewerage system. Many industrial undertakings, even today, are discharging polluted water into the canals, and that is an aspect of the problem that must be dealt with.
Some canals are off the main line and there is no obvious value in maintaining them. In those instances there may be a case for filling in and using the land available for other uses. They could be used for other recreational activities. I hope, therefore, that a positive attitude will be taken to the use of canals for recreation rather than continuing to allow them to fall into disuse and neglect.
Thirdly, anyone who considers the problem of bulk transport in Britain must be amazed that we have neglected the canal system in Britain as a means of transport. Recently, there became available a report of the Inland Shipping Group, which had analysed the prospects for improving the use of canals in Britain for bulk transport. The report makes interesting comparisons with other European countries. It is clear that other countries have been able to make better use of their waterways than we have.
If we were able to improve our canal system and make better use of it for transport, it could be linked with the European system, thus saving costs as well as bringing us in touch in transport terms with a valuable network in Europe. I understand that the economic viability of canal transport is indisputable, particularly in these days of fuel shortages and the need to economise on imported fuels, and even when we have North Sea gas and oil flowing into Britain in large quantities we shall still need to economise.
I understand that 1 ton of freight can be shipped 250 miles on water per gallon of fuel compared with 58 miles by road. It is estimated that a single barge train of 10 units can replace 70


30-ton lorries. The Chairman of the Inland Shipping Group has estimated that the canals of Britain could carry 20 per cent. of Britain's bulk transport, thus reducing costs, easing road congestion, reducing noise and conserving fuel, as well as improving the environment.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the report of the Inland Shipping Group and tell us the reaction of the Government to the recommendation that the Government should establish an inland shipping planning and financing division within the Department of the Environment or the Department of Trade. I should be glad if the Minister would also say what steps are being taken to co-ordinate action on the improvement of canals for inland transport with the British Waterways Board and the other authorities concerned.
The canals in the West Midlands can be a very attractive source of recreation. Many of them now are neglected. They produce a danger to children. They are a danger to health. I hope that as a result of the debate today—and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) are here to support my plea—and the attention that we are bringing to this problem, early action will be taken to improve the canals in the West Midlands and to save young lives in particular.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I shall seek to be non-controversial so as not to inflame the passions of the only Conservative Member present, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). It is difficult to be politically controversial on a subject like canals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) has said, the issue of canal safety is causing concern in the West Midlands. I do not propose to spend all of my time talking about canal safety, but I shall cover some of the ground mentioned by my hon. Friend.
I must declare an interest—not a financial interest. There is a canal at the bottom of my garden, but that in no way prejudices my approach to the subject.
The Black Country is at the industrial heart of the nation. Enormous wealth has

been created in this area since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, but this great wealth was created at the cost of developing an environmental disaster area. One economist put it succinctly when he said:
The desire to create the Jerusalem of economic growth in England's green and pleasant land has so far resulted in a conspicuous lack of both greenness and pleasantness.
Few areas of the country can be so lacking in greenness and pleasantness as parts of the Black Country. Thankfully, the era of environmental irresponsibility is over.
It is a paradox that the enormous canal network created in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and for so long thought to have declined to total insignificance is experiencing a renaissance or resurgence. A great deal of encouragement has been given by successive Governments of late to our canal system and I hope that that encouragement will develop even further in the future.
Our canal system can not only play a more vital role in developing a more rational policy towards freight transport but can be utilised for recreational environmental and social purposes. When they were created, the major use of canals was economic, for the transportation of goods from one part of the country to another, and it is obvious that with imagination this role can be extended. I believe that some of our transport problems can be solved by a dynamic approach to our inland waterways system.
I speak mainly about canals in the context of the West Midlands. I believe that we must develop them. We must attempt to preserve the heritage and culture of this part of the country. It is all very well to say that canals are a symbol of the past and that in many ways the past is regretted. However, I believe that our urban areas can foster our canal network to our mutual advantage.
Canals offer to the populations living in urban areas a secluded environment clear of noise, fumes and the dangers of road traffic. One writer has called the canal system "linear parks". Others have described canals as "green fingers" linking the Black Country with more pleasant areas outside it.
Canals are used extensively, and can be used more extensively, for canoeing


and for angling. Angling is very much in the tradition of Black Country sport. The canals can also be used for towpath walking. No one needs go to the Pen-nines to walk over attractive countryside. We have attractive areas for walking and rambling almost in the centres of our urban areas. Canals are often havens for wild life and interesting flora and fauna. The conservationists would have an interest in preserving our canal network.
All this requires positive thinking rather than negative thinking and imagination rather than reaction, and I am pleased to say that in their structure plans most of our Black Country boroughs have shown a dynamic approach towards our canal system and are in process of developing their plans to utilise fully the resources at our disposal. But it requires financial assistance and other encouragement from the central Government, and I hope that it will come.
Tribute must be paid to voluntary bodies like the Black Country Society and other organisations which, at a time when both central and local Government did not properly harness our resources, sought to drain canals of refuse and to instil in the population a sense of enthusiasm for the amenities on their doorsteps. One interesting feature of our canal system is that very often canals are blocked from public view. There may be thousands of people living near canals who do not recognise the existence or the potentialities of them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North referred to the great problem of accidents in canals. This is an emotion-charged area. Whenever there is the loss of a young life, it immediately precipitates an outburst amongst local residents which is reflected in the newspapers. This is right and just, because we cannot tolerate any loss of young lives. But it is not always the canal filled with water which is a danger. Often children fall into canals which are partly filled, and in many ways these canals are the most injurious to health.
In the past 21 years 30 children have been drowned in the Wallsall area. Although that averages only one and a half or two a year, it is much too high. In one small stretch of canal 12 children have been drowned, and our local coroner has a file which grows annually.
This is an indictment of the way that we run our affairs, despite the efforts of local authorities. We cannot tolerate this un-acceptably high level of deaths. Canals are potential dangers, but, then, so are roads.
Some of the solutions suggested are perhaps impractical. Obviously, there are a number of canals which must be filled in, and many have already been dealt with in this way in the Black Country. There are other stretches which are candidates for this approach. But the cost is very high, and it would have to be done selectively.
Fencing is another solution. But we do not want indiscriminate fencing. One of the attributes of our canal system is accessability, and this is the difficulty facing those concerned about child safety. The amenity lobby will say that canals must be made accessible and that fences must be removed. Then those most concerned about child safety say that fencing must be put up, otherwise the canals are a danger to life. Clearly, there is a problem for the Minister and the local authorities as they try to reconcile the two interests, and, obviously, the interests of children must be to the fore.
Safety officers and borough engineers say that in some cases fencing can be dangerous. This may be hard to appreciate. A young child might be attracted to a fence, attempt to clamber over it, and end up in a canal. What is more, although a fence does not provide a barrier to a young child, it will provide an almost insurmountable barrier to would-be rescuers. Although there must be fencing along certain stretches and dangerous sections like locks, again indiscriminate fencing will not yield the right results.
The main solution lies in education. By that I mean not only the education of young children to the dangers of canals, but the education of parents. People living near canals must be made to realise that they are a danger and that they have to be ever vigilant.
My own local authority and the local police have done a great deal in this direction. My local newspaper, the  Walsall Observer, has mounted a campaign, aided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, to publicise the great dangers of canals to children.


Children should be educated in the rules of water safety. My local authority has spent a great deal of money training young children in swimming baths and developing propaganda. This is the best long-term answer, with fencing and filling in as important secondary measures.
It may appear contradictory to say so, but environmentalists to whom I have spoken say that the solution to child safety is not in closing canals but in opening them up to the public. This is often hard to appreciate. The argument is that if canals are disused children can walk along towpaths and fall in with no one available to rescue them, whereas if the canals are fully utilised and their environmental attractions are recognised they will be properly used, people will walk along tow paths and their presence will be a block to enthusiastic young children who may be tempted to go too close to the canal. This matter must be fully recognised. The more people there are the less the danger there might be to young children.
The eighteenth century capitalists—I use that word in no pejorative sense on this occasion—unwittingly bequeathed to the modem age a priceless asset: the canal. I hope that the debate will help to publicise the enormous potentialities, not only within our areas but within the country as a whole, of the canal system and industry in helping to ease our transportation problems as well as providing recreational, leisure and social aspects. To the Earl of Dudley, to Iron-mad Wilkinson, to those eighteenth and nineteenth century businessmen who so ruthlessly exploited the area but bequeathed something priceless to us, we should offer our thanks.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) for drawing the attention of the House to the subject of the safety and improvement of canals in the West Midlands, which is, after all, the hub of the canal system just as it is the hub of the railways and the motorway systems in this country. As a West Midlands Member, I am proud of that fact and conscious of the responsibilities of that area on those grounds.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) drew particular attention to

the safety aspects. I wish to draw attention to the alternative uses of canals and perhaps the lack of co-ordination between some of their functions. In these days of increasing water shortage in this country, I think we need to pay close attention to the functions of the canals with their reservoirs and possibilities for the use and distribution of water.
Connected with that point is the function of canals as part of our drainage system. I fear that there is a possibility, under the new and enlarged regional water authorities, that these uses have not been brought to their attention and are not within their consideration to the extent that those of us who are concerned with canals would wish.
Turning to the recreational uses of canals, those stretches which are not primarily required for transportation or for boating still have a valuable function for anglers. These uses are to some extent conflicting. Therefore, I suggest that stretches which are not still through routes have great recreational value for fishermen. Before we consider filling in more canals, we should bear in mind the great need of this growing sport for easily accessible stretches of water.
On the subject of improvements, there is a conflict between the recreational and commercial uses of canals, especially when we consider dredging. The considerations applying to stretches of water to be used for each purpose should apply there also.
The main waterway running through my constituency is the Birmingham and Worcester Canal. It has a more beautiful scenario than that referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, South. However, it has the same problems of safety. Indeed, the particular conditions of some of the locks give cause for concern.
I should like more safety equipment to be available at locks. Although those who originally constructed the canals were known as navigators, unfortunately those who now make use of them are not so skilled in the art of navigation and, therefore, are not so aware of the elementary precautions for safety—I will not describe it as safety at sea—on the water. Recently there was a tragedy not far from my area. A gallant headmaster was drowned when trying to rescue one of his charges who had fallen


into a lock. The most dangerous section of a canal is where a lock is sited, because of the turbulence of the water created through the functioning of the lock. I think we need to pay more attention to the provision of life-saving equipment at locks. I am conscious of the renowned Tardebigge flight—one of the major flights in this country and certainly the most beautiful. There is a great lack of such equipment, as I can verify from a sponsored walk that I undertook quite recently.
The condition of canal banks is a general point. It is of concern to fishermen and those who like to walk along towpaths, and it must inevitably affect the efficiency of canals for drainage and the other purposes to which I have referred.
I support the right hon. Member for Walsall, North in drawing the attention of the House to this important subject. I have pleasure in offering him every support on this occasion.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Geoff Edge: I am pleased to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on the subject of the problems of canals in the West Midlands. As a West Mid-lander born and bred and a Black Countryman who has lived the early part of his life on the banks of Black Country canals and later on the banks of a canal in Buckinghamshire, I can understand the comment made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) that canals have two faces. One day they are green and very pleasant, almost like the banks of rivers, ideal for fishing, and a great weekend attraction for families from the conurbations. But they also have the aspect of green or yellow polluted water. The yellow and orange canal often looks at its best in the urban areas with ash banks devoid of vegetation and looked upon as areas having little potential for recreation.
The West Midlands canals have dangers and also potential for recreational use. We are all aware of the great problems that canals present to young children with the ever-present danger of drowning accidents.
The West Midlands and the Birmingham Black Country conurbations have the greatest concentration of canals and a more dense canal network, even after the infilling of recent years, than almost any other part of the country and most parts of Western Europe. Many of those canals are partly disused and are overgrown. They are unfenced and, therefore, create a danger to children who find themselves attracted to the waste land forming the canal banks. Often these canal banks are deserted, except for other children, and if a child falls in, there is no one there to whom others can turn for help. By the time help is obtained it is often too late. Therefore, we need to look carefully at the problem of canal safety.
Every time a child is drowned there is a great cry for the infilling of canals. However, we must have a sense of balance. If we were to fill in every canal in the West Midlands, which is what some people, particularly parents, have cried out for after the tragedy of losing a child aged 4 or 5 not only should we face the enormous cost of creating new water supply and effluent disposal systems, but we should deprive people in the area of the opportunity of boating, for which part of the system is used. Part of the Wyrley and Essington canal which flows through my constituency is widely used for boating purposes.
If we were to carry out a programme of infilling we should also, and perhaps more importantly, sever irrevocably the national canal system, because it is in the heart of the conurbation that the canal system links the Trent with the Thames and the Severn. If the system is not properly maintained in the West Midlands, it will not be possible to set out on the Thames and end up on the Trent or the Mersey. That opportunity would be lost for ever, and that would be a tragedy.
The logical conclusion to suggesting the infilling of canals is that we should infill rivers, because some rivers are infinitely more effective as a way of drowning than the canal system is ever likely to be or has been in the past. We must have a sense of proportion about this. Much of the canal system must remain, but there should be an urgent survey of the canals in the West Midlands to see what safety provisions can be made. Life-saving equipment and lifebelts are often


provided on river banks but they are absent from the canals, even in the most frequented part of the system.
Secondly, we should consider the whole matter of fencing the most dangerous portions of the canals. Thirdly, we should ask whether it is necessary to maintain every scrap of the canal system that we have inherited. There are many miles of canals in the West Midlands which to all intents and purposes are unnavigable, stretches are overgrown and the brickwork on the banks has decayed, but nothing is done either to put the canals in working order or to fill them in. Many of the more backward sections are often canal arms which served factories during the Industrial Revolution, but they are now disused and should be closed for ever.
All reasonable canal enthusiasts and members of the Black Country Society, such as myself, accept that it is no longer realistic to argue that every drop of oily water and every stretch of reed-filled canal ought to be maintained. There should be an urgent survey throughout the West Midlands by the British Waterways Board and the local authorities within a specified time, and proposals should then be put to the Minister stating which portions of canal it is proposed to fill in and which portions it is proposed to maintain and—hopefully—develop for other purposes.
But that cannot be done without cash. For too long our canal systems have been starved of money. There has not been the necessary money to maintain the banks in proper repair. The banks of some sections of canals are subject to heavy erosion, with the result that the towpaths become narrower and progressively more unsafe. Money is needed to infill canals, and legislation is necessary to ensure that disused canal arms are not cut off from the main part of the system and left as cesspits for industrial effluent. That is what is happening to parts of the canal system.
In Tipton part of the canal is separated from the main system and is used solely by industry for the supply of water. It is developing into a growing pool of oily water on people's doorsteps. Such things ought not to happen. Combined with the pressure for infilling, there should be a real effort to consider developing the recreation potential of the

canal system. In some cases it would be appropriate to plant trees and develop walkways, but that is not the only solution, and it is not a solution that would commend itself to all the people in the Black Country, because there is a growing interest among the people there in the role of industrial archaeology and in seeing the sinews of the Industrial Revolution, rusty and derelict though they may be. There is tremendous interest in travelling through the Dudley Tunnel by legging and in examining canal aqueducts and engineering feats which have often been destroyed, and I therefore repeat that the industrial archaeology aspect should be considered.
There is tremendous recreation potential in the area. Already the work of the Bliss Hill Museum at Telford in developing an industrial museum which includes Reynolds' famous canal is attracting a growing number of visitors.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me for intervening. I trust that he will allow the Minister time to reply. This debate must end at 12 o'clock.

Mr. Edge: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was about to conclude my remarks.
There should be a careful examination of the canal system to see what needs to be infilled and what needs to be developed for recreation purposes, what can be used for industrial archaeological museums, and so on. I look forward to some sign from the Minister that the long period of neglect of the West Midlands canal system will come to an end and that within a short time there will be positive proposals for the development of the system.

11.46 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I
am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) for raising this matter today and to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for the constructive manner in which they have approached the safety and amenity aspects of this subject and tried to point out the possibilities that exist for improvement.
I regard the canals as of tremendous importance in the development of leisure facilities as a whole. In coming back to


office as Minister for Sport, I was surprised to learn how many advisory bodies there were on water matters, both statutory and voluntary, and how enthusiastic they all are, which is no doubt why there has been a comparatively large turn-out for today's debate.
The House as a whole takes such an interest in canals that I have just reconstituted the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, which is the consumer group to the British Waterways Board, which runs the canals, and I thought it right to put back on that council two Members, one from each side of the House, who, unfortunately, had been removed from the council by my predecessor. I thought that that would be a good way of maintaining a direct link with those Members who have been writing about their problems, and I am sure that things will work out well. I know that John Barratt, the chairman of the council, welcomes the interest that is shown in this subject and the appointment of Members from both sides of the House. Until recently Mr. Barratt was county planning officer for Staffordshire, so by a coincidence he is a good Midlander who is interested in maintaining the canals.
The canal system is a product of the Industrial Revolution. It was never thought of in terms of recreational use, and I am sorry that the canals have fallen into considerable disuse over the years, with the result that there is now a tremendous backlog of maintenance work to be done. The British Waterways Board, quite properly, continually draws my attention to the problem.
The amount of money that is needed for work on the towpaths alone is enormous. I believe that we ought not to be closing canals but opening many more and even building new ones. The whole question of how one polices the canals and puts the towpaths in good order is one which local authorities and the board must consider jointly in order to provide the necessary solutions, and it will not be easy to produce the money, either.
Some hon. Members might be surprised that I should talk about opening up new canals, but I have been making speeches on the subject recently. With the new regional water authorities and the National Water Council dealing with

water as a whole, we now have opportunities in this regard. Although we had a lot to say about the reorganisation of water administration introduced by the previous administration, we certainly support the principle of dealing with water as a whole.
Our need in this country is the transportation of water from areas like Wales and Scotland, where there is plenty, to areas like the South-East, East Anglia and the South-West where there is a scarcity. I have made it clear already to the authorities—I hope that I carry the House with me—that it would seem to make more sense to dig canals, to transport the water through canals which can be used for other purposes like boating and angling, than to dig holes underground and transport the water in pipes, which has been the traditional method for many years. If I may call this fresh thinking, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it makes sense in the transport of water at the same time to improve recreational amenity.

Mr. Clement Freud: The Minister mentioned boating and angling. Is he aware of the enormous controversy and enmity between boaters and anglers on the canals?

Mr, Howell: I do not believe that there is any enmity between those two groups. There are conflicts, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) said when the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was not present. I have it in mind to mention this matter.
There is a conflict, and regional sports councils and my national advisers are doing their best to resolve it. More and more, anglers and boaters are co-operating in arrangements about hours when it is sensible to fish and not disturb the water and those times, later in the day, when it would be sensible for boats to set sail. As a former angler myself—I occasionally cast my float now, although usually in the sea—I am glad to say that anglers on the whole get up early and want to follow their pastime when the boating people are not so ready to start out. It is by accepting these facts of life that we can make some progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North was right to emphasise the fatalities which have occurred and


which are a serious concern to us. I agree with most of the facts that he gave about waterways in the Birmingham area, so I will not go over that ground again. I think that five children have been killed in the last two years in Birmingham, and that is a matter of great concern to us all.
I do not think that fencing is the answer. Experience is showing that the answer is much more likely to be found in opening up the canals, having wardens and encouraging people to be about. There have been some extraordinarily interesting experiments supporting this line. For example, by opening up the canals and having wardens, which we might call the halfway stage between the two arguments, on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, where about 30 young people were killed between 1958 and 1967, which was tragic, between 1968 and 1974 the number dropped to three, which is a significant improvement. In London there have been no fatalities since all the canals were opened to the public in June 1968. These are two striking sets of figures showing the success which can be achieved with the right sort of public approach. By opening up the canals in this way and making safety the predominant consideration, we encourage people to respect water as well as enjoy it. 1 am glad that all who have spoken have supported that view.
We have a lot of unfortunate evidence about fences. People make holes in fences. The very fact that a fence has been erected is an attraction in itself in most cities to young people to get over it, under it, or through it. In a very unhappy case at Winson Green in Birmingham last year, when a boy of four was drowned, the workmen erecting the fence testified that the children involved had uprooted the fence posts before the concrete was dry. So we cannot rely on fencing to produce the desirable ends, and it is unconstructive to do so. It is also much more sensible, for the reasons which have been given and which I will not go over again, not to fill in canals.
Local authorities have a tremendous role to play. I recently opened the Ashton Canal at Manchester which had been stagnant, full of rubbish and in a terrible state. Everybody advised the British Waterways Board to fill it in, as it had no further use. But, for the argu-

ment stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Edge) —that this would disrupt the Cheshire ring of canals and interfere with the totality of navigation—it was decided to reject that approach.
Two or three thousand volunteers turned up week after week to clean the canal. They did a splendid job. The local authorities and the board have joined together to lay out the towpath with greens and trees. As I went along it on the day I opened it, we were cheered at almost every lock by the local inhabitants, starting from the centre of Manchester. We agreed that it was a marvellous place for hikers and walkers and for people to sit and stroll on a Sunday morning. It has produced a new dimension in the leisure opportunities for the people of industrial Lancashire. I am sure that that is the approach to these matters that we want. There is plenty of legislation to enable local authorities to involve themselves in these matters, and I hope that they will do so.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned freight. The British Waterways Board is anxious to do what it can to encourage the greater transport of freight, which obviously has attractions, but in the West Midlands the width of the canals makes it almost impossible for freight to become an economic proposition. However, if anyone can come up with economic propositions we should be very interested, because we want to do all we can to encourage them. But we have to recognise the difficulties. We have just received the report of the Inland Waterways Association, which my right hon. Friend also mentioned. This is being urgently considered by Ministers in my Department, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries.
I am grateful to all hon. Members for having taken part in this debate. I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for his point about industrial archaeology. Those of us who wish to protect and preserve our industrial heritage cannot do so if we go around filling in the canals which are an essential part of that heritage.
The great problem in this area in future is that more and more people will


want to use the canals and will want them restored. 1 share that view, and I am glad to know that it is the view of my hon. Friends as well. The difficulty is that there are already signs that the canals are becoming over-congested. More and more people in the cities want to put boats on the canals so that they can travel, for example, from the Thames to the Trent. This underlines the importance of the West Midlands canals as a central part of the inland water highway of this country.
For all our citizens we shall try to use the canals in the way that I have suggested—constructively, while at the same time taking every possible step to maintain safety. I repeat that that can best be done by opening them up, spending money on them and making them attractive to the public. Then, as I have shown, questions of safety automatically fall into proper perspective.
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.

ROYAL MARINES

12 noon.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The Royal Marines are a comparatively small body of men, founded as far back as 1664. They are part of the Royal Navy but serve and have served mainly as amphibious soldiers, today organised in commando units. Because of their small number, and perhaps because they fall in the dividing line between the Army and the Royal Navy, they are often overlooked in our debates. That is why we are grateful for being able to raise this subject in today's Adjournment debate.
The Royal Marines may well be overlooked in Parliament, but their battle record cannot be overlooked. Their first battle honour is, of course, Gibraltar. But in 1827 Georve IV gave them the Great Globe itself as the only way of displaying all the honours they had earned in war both ashore and afloat. Incidentally, it may be of interest to note that they share the Great Globe with their comrades in arms in the United States Marine Corps.
It is perhaps because the Royal Marines are a minority in the Senior Service that they have a particularly high

 esprit de corps and morale. Often these days it is not much good talking about tradition or patriotism, or perhaps even honour: they are regarded as rather old fashioned words. In the jargon of today we talk about teeth-to-tail ratios, cost-effectiveness and flexibility. I suggest that it is in this respect that the Royal Marines predominate. They are highly professional and versatile. Who else could produce helicopter pilots, swimmer-canoeists, ski troops, landing craft crews, naval gunners or commando soldiers from the same corps? The Royal Marines can and do.
We are an island, and throughout our history we have had to land troops overseas, troops that can constantly switch from jungle warfare in Borneo to urban guerrilla warfare in Belfast, who can land from submarines or canoes for intelligence operations or as fighting units with their own support from helicopters. The list of their operations since World War Two can be found in HANSARD for 21st May at column 74.
It can be said—indeed it has been said—that Army units could do the same job as Royal Marines with special training. Perhaps that is true. But for how long with how much flexibility? Soldiers would have to be specially trained and taken away from their own duties for this purpose, with all the waste and overheads that that would entail. But the Royal Marines are there and have been there for over 300 years, ready to switch from one emergency to the next.
The only complaint I have to make to the Minister is that a total of 8,000 men, including the band service, is rather small. It is, I believe, virtually the lowest number to which the Royal Marines have sunk in the whole 300-odd years of their existence. I believe that more men could be recruited but that the numbers tend to be held to a certain percentage of the Royal Navy. A marine is a marine because he is part of the Royal Navy, and that link must never be broken. But I believe that numbers can and perhaps should be increased.
There is a saying "Once a marine, always a marine." The House may have noticed that there are hon. Members on both sides who are wearing a certain tie. This perhaps represents one of the more


exclusive groups in the Houses of Parliament—the ex-Royal Marine Members of both Houses, and of the staff of the Palace of Westminster who give us such sterling service and to whom we as Members of Parliament owe so much. I conclude by reminding the House of the words of Lord St. Vincent many years ago. He said:
If ever the hour of danger should come to England, they "—
that is, the Royal Marines—
would be found to be the country's sheet anchor..
I should like to paraphrase those words and to say that if ever the hour of real danger comes for the Corps of Royal Marines, they will find many sheet anchors in all parties and on both sides of both Houses of Parliament.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: It is a great pleasure and honour to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). I speak for the first time in this Parliament in his support. This is a unique occasion, although we have noticed similar occasions in the House previously. There are times when we forget our party politics and we speak from both sides of the House with the same voice. Certainly today there are no party politics in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and I speak today with the same voice as that of the hon. Member for Haltemprice, and that is in support of the corps in which we were proud to serve.
When I first joined the corps many years ago, one of the things we were told was that the future of the corps was in doubt. It has been in doubt many times previously. Certainly in the last war the corps proved its worth in the defence of our country and in the defence of civilisation. We have done this before.
The chief thing I remember from my serving days was not only the  esprit de corps, to which reference has already been made, but the adaptability of the ordinary marine and his sense of responsibility. In the one unit in which I served—the 30th Assault Unit; a very small, very exclusive unit—I can remember the way in which the ordinary marine

took on responsibility which went far beyond what might have been expected from his rank. Marines were able to do that because of not only their professional training but their training as marines. But they were expected, when things changed, when an emergency arose, to adapt themselves swiftly and professionally to a new situation.
The other thing to which I want to refer is the close liaison which the corps has always had with the Royal Navy. I am delighted to see the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) in his place. He is one who knows about this from his professional experience. We had a close association. When we were on ship we knew what to do. We did not get in the way. I am sure that the men who served in the Royal Navy will know very well that when ordinary troops come on board ship one of the great difficulties is getting them to adapt themselves to the ways of a ship. Certainly in the Corps of Royal Marines we have had this experience over many generations, and we know how to behave and how to fit in with the ordinary ship's company. Moreover, there has always been a strong bond of affection between us and the Royal Navy which has stood both the Royal Navy and the Marines in good stead when difficulties have arisen.
It would be very unfortunate if ever the situation arose in which we did not have that adaptability, that ability to rely on the ordinary man, which has been a characteristic of the corps since any of us can remember. I hope that not only the House but the nation will understand the very special part that Royal Marines have played in the defence of this country.
Finally, let me say, as a Member on the Government side of the House, that we are very conscious that the country needs defending. We are very conscious of the fact that this country has a very large part to play in the defence of decency and civilisation throughout the world and the sort of things which are part and parcel of the tradition of this House itself.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), I rise for the first time in the present Parliament


to make a full, though I hasten to add brief, speech on this subject. It may be said that this is a sinister exercise. There seems to be a lobby at work. We have an interest to declare. It is a very honourable interest. It is a lobby for the safety of the realm.
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for initiating the debate. As he said, the corps is well represented in the Chambers and the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. It is a  corps delite but one in which neither lineage, wealth nor type of schooling is necessary to success and promotion.
For me at least my own undistinguished service was the most important part of my education. I volunteered from university in 1939 and found myself on the anniversary day of the corps foundation on the parade ground at Eastney. Though assigned to the Chatham division, I never went to Chatham.
Not only the two main parties in the House, but the three old divisions are represented in this debate. The fact is that the RMO and their Lordships had to resort to such lengths as trying to make the hon. Member for Epping Forest, then a callow student, into an officer because the country and the corps were unprepared for the tasks which the Second World War was to impose.
In October 1939 it was an almost entirely sea service corps. As the Second World War continued, however, from the Narrow Seas to the Pacific Ocean, combined operations and opposed landing were prominent. So we had the Royal Marine Brigade expanded into the Royal Marine Division, then broken into commandos, and Army commandos also raised  ad hoc.
It seems to be a lesson of past history, when Marines have been repeatedly raised and disbanded, that Governments tend to make a feckless false economy, when they impose defence cuts, by descending upon a corps which in recent years, from Brunei to the Lough Neagh patrol, has exemplified something approaching the perfection in inter-arm and inter-Service versatility required of modern integrated armed forces.
The leading military Powers today know that marines are essential. The

United States Marine Corps, which also claims its origins in 1664, is world renowned and the naval infantry of Imperial Russia have been reborn under the new maritime super-Power—the Soviet Union—whose maritime force, according to a statement by Admiral Gorshkov on 28th July 1967,
has been converted into an offensive type of long-range armed force.
That is an important statement to keep in mind.
In what we are trying to do today we have the sympathy of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy; and I trust that the merits of the case will ensure the continuance of the Royal corps,  per mare, per terram ad multos annos.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for initiating this debate. Both of us must declare our interest. The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the all-party ex-Royal Marine Group in the House. I am its secretary.
There are about 10 or 12 Members of the House of Commons who are ex-Royal Marines. There are four or five Members of the House of Lords who are ex-Royal Marines. There are 18 to 20 members of the staff, including, Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Green, your Trainbearer, to whom we are all very grateful for all he does, who are ex-Royal Marines.
I had the honour to serve with the Royal Marines during the last war as a humble sergeant, an NCO. It is sometimes said that it is the NCOs who actually organise things and do the job. In that humble capacity, between 1942 and 1946 I became very proud of my associations with the corps and with its traditions. As has been said, once a marine, always a marine. This is very true. One never forgets one's life with the Marines. I sincerely hope that this great and proud tradition will be long maintained.
It has been pointed out that the corps is now over 300 years old. Its long and glorious history is written into the annals of this country. With its present strength of 8,000 it is doing a first-class job throughout the world. It is true to say that Marines are soldiers and sailors too.


This is the important rôle that marines play. The rôle of the corps is unique— to provide a specialist landing force in readiness for any emergency.
I, like many hon. Members on this side, believe that if we can reduce our defence budget, we should do so. I believe that we are spending a tremendous amount of money on it. Equally I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that we are in need of defence and that we must have an adequate defence force. If we are to have that adequate defence force, we should retain the best elements of it. This means that we must retain the Corps of Royal Marines.
I should like to have from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who represents a marine constituency in Portsmouth, a very firm assurance that there is no possibility that the Marines will be assimilated into either the Navy or the Army. We all know the vital rôle that the Marines are playing in Northern Ireland. They would be sadly missed if they had to come out of the province now.
The Marines' great rôle in history and at present is to deal with the unexpected. In the last 25 years the corps has seen service in Palestine, the Canal Zone, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden, the Far East, Africa, Borneo, and Brunei.
In addition to all those jobs which the corps has undertaken with a relatively small staff under its control, it has helped very much with famine relief throughout the world and earned the admiration of people wherever it has gone. This is one thing which the Marines do above all other regiments or corps, no matter what they might be. Marines leave behind a good impression. We should be proud of this.
We are also—we boast about the fact —a ceremonial regiment. We are proud of our perfection and drill and we are proud that we provide bands for the Royal Navy and some excellent music.
Our recruitment record is good. Recruitment for the Navy is down 30 per cent. and for the Army it is down 40 per cent. but for the Marines it is down by only 23 per cent.
I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice that there is a case for in-

creasing the size of the corps if that can be done. Its main duty is that of a commando force. When I first joined the Marines in 1942 I understood that, apart from having to be above average in intelligence and in physical fitness, I should be able to wear the blue uniform which I had always thought that marines walked out in. I was never issued with one. I wore khaki.
There are some 20 marine corps in the world. One can ask, why have them? Cannot the Army do just as well? It would need expensive training to make that possible. As I have said, marines are soldiers and sailors too, and by fulfilling this double rôle they earn our gratitude. I do not believe that either the Army or the Navy could do the same job independently by itself. The Royal Marines are specialists in seaborne landings.
We are a small corps. For every marine there are 10 sailors, 12 airmen and 20 soldiers, but they have a great  esprit de corps a high morale, a high belief in themselves. It is this which endears them to each other. One knows that if one is in trouble anywhere in the world, one has only to shout "Royals!" and one gets help from somewhere. I hope that that will continue. Marines are the true professionals. This should be underlined and understood. They have a high sense of morale and purpose.
If the Minister takes the view that it is a question of "first in and last out", I must point out that we have 310 years behind us. I sincerely hope that the corps will remain in existence for a long time to come. It has a long and distinguished history. The Marines deserve the support of the Government, the nation and the House.

12.20 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am delighted to engage in combined operations with the Royal Marines—not, I may say, for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who initiated this debate, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) have said, the Royal Marines are an integral part of the Royal Navy, integrated in every way, but both Services retain their individual personalities, and this surely is the basis of all truly happy marriages.
The fact that the Royal Marines wear a different uniform, live ashore in their own barracks—when they are ashore— and have their own administration is really just peanuts. It is candle ends. It is only quartermaster stuff. The present-day use of the Armed Forces for the preservation of peace—that is to say, the prevention of war rather than the waging of war—throws a responsibility as never before on the very junior ranks, on the privates, corporals and very junior NCOs in charge of patrols, who have to make decisions which in conventional war are made at a much higher level in the military command structure. This was never more true that it is in Northern Ireland at the moment.
It is worth asking what is the basic motivation which makes these very young men behave with such courage, discipline and restraint. What is it that makes them put aside the normal human instincts of self-preservation in face of danger when it arises? I believe that the most important single factor is a feeling of belonging to an identifiable, compact and respected unit. This surely is the basis of the whole British regimental system. This is the thing which makes a young corporal hop up out of a foxhole and face fire from the enemy when every human instinct would suggest that he should stay in the foxhole.
Every soldier under this system is not only proud of his unit but would also be ashamed to death of being seen to fail or falter in moments of danger. It is not too much to say that the fear of letting the side down is greater than the fear of danger from the enemy. I believe that this is especially the case when the unit or regiment is small enough for families to know one another. In the last resort the young man would have the feeling that how he conducted himself when the crunch came, because he belonged to a small and tightly-knit unit, would get back to his mother, wife or girl friend. I believe that this feeling is extremely close to a valuable  corps d'élite such as the Royal Marines undoubtedly are.
I say sincerely that any Government who might contemplate squandering this very strong motivation in a search for rationalisation or small-scale administrative savings would be in very great

danger of throwing away the baby with the bath water.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. Jim Spicer: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of brothers-in-arms. I served for many years in the Parachute Regiment and we served, as the hon. Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) will know, alongside the Royal Marines not only in the Middle East, Cyprus and Aden but also in Northern Ireland and many other parts of the world. We formed a comradeship which is almost unique.
I believe we both accept that in the world today the need for elite armed forces is greater than it ever has been. Many people these days talk about the need for quality and not quantity in many areas, but certainly if ever there was a requirement for quality it is surely in our Armed Forces today. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has pointed this out. I believe with him that if there was ever any hint—and there seems to be a hint of this today— of any further cuts in the Armed Forces, and if anyone contemplated a cut in the Royal Marines, that would strike dismay not only among the Marines and the Royal Navy but among the Armed Forces and would strike an irreparable blow at their morale.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I welcome the opportunity of making a short intervention in this too brief debate in order to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for having initiated the debate, and secondly because it enables me to pay a tribute to the Royal Marines and to thank them for all the kindness they showed to me during the year and more which I had as Minister for the Royal Navy.
One of the highlights of that time in office was when I went with the present Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy and other hon. Members to the Mediterranean under Royal Marine auspices. We went in that splendid ship HMS "Bulwark" and we dined on HMS "Intrepid". We got up at an unearthly hour, the sort of time at which we are accustomed to going to bed, at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, in order to have


the privilege of becoming temporary Royal Marine commandos.
We went ashore in helicopters, and it was interesting to see the reaction of a splendid Royal Marine sergeant when he found that two of his men had been taken away and that there had been substituted for them the Commanding General of the Royal Marines and the Minister for the Navy, and that another squad had been substituted by Members of Parliament. There was at first a little unease about it until one allowed onself to use a few non-parliamentary words in conversation with one's friends, and one then noticed that the atmosphere relaxed. One was able to see at first hand the marvellous spirit among these men and their immense efficiency in conducting the type of warfare which we hope they will never have to do in anger but their whole ability to do this is a sure shield for us.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with the recruiting situation in the Royal Marines. One matter in which I am most interested is that of the reserves. The Under-Secretary knows that we had a little exchange at Question Time recently on the Bill which is ready and in draft to enable the Royal Marine reserves to undertake the same obligations as the TAVR and to get the bounty of £60 which the members of the TAVR receive. As I say, the Bill is there. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had a new-found interest in this matter. That is not so. He knows that when one becomes a Minister one cannot get everything that one wants done quickly. This Bill will have all-party support.
The hon. Gentleman has not got an overladen programme of legislation and I hope he will be able to bring the Bill forward. It can be taken separately from the review of the reserves. The only difficulty in bringing in the Bill before the conclusion of the review is that the hon. Gentleman would not be able to be as accurate as he otherwise would be about the exact financial implications of the measure. Nevertheless, I hope it can be taken apart from the general review of the reserves. As I say, it would have all-party support and it would help recruiting to the Royal Marine reserves.
I am grateful for having been called to speak in this debate. If the Under-Secretary is able to say whether the Royal

Marines are to be exempt from the possibility of cuts we shall be only too glad. The matter is a little worrying because HMS "Bulwark" is becoming an old ship now, and decisions about her and other ships involved will have to be made very soon. If the hon. Gentleman can say something of a reassuring character, it will be welcomed by the many friends of the Royal Marines, not only in this House but throughout the country.

12.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for giving me this opportunity to speak about the Royal Marines. The House is well aware of his own long association with the corps, both as a Royal Marine himself and as a Member of this House— an association shared, in one or both those capacities, by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I want to emphasise how glad I am that my appointment as Minister for the Royal Navy has given me the opportunity of being directly associated with the corps and its fine traditions.
It is clear from this short debate that there is no shortage of support for the Royal Marines in this House. It would be a rash Minister who ignored the combined forces of the hon. Member for Haltemprice, my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), backed up by no less a figure than the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), my predecessor in office and, objectively of course, by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I do not think that any of us remained unmoved when the hon. and gallant gentleman drew attention so well to the qualities and the origins of that spirit in the Royal Marines which we have all come to appreciate.
As I said in the debate on 22nd March, I have in recent years been able to watch the Royal Marines at work at close quarters, both in this country and abroad, in a very wide variety of activities. I have seen their training, including their


work-up for the major NATO exercise to which the hon. and learned Member for Colchester referred. I have witnessed at first hand their exemplary conduct in Northern Ireland. Most recently—indeed only this week—I visited them at Plymouth. All this has left me in absolutely no doubt whatever about their dedication, fitness and expertise.
The House will know of my strongly held view that the Royal Marines, under the impressive leadership of their officers and their NCOs, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. West so rightly drew attention, together with those units of the Army and the one Royal Air Force officer who wears the green beret, consistently set the highest standards in all that they tackle and accomplish. Within the Services as a whole they have provided a pace-setting centre of excellence. Their bands and orchestras have also always maintained the same high quality and have provided enjoyment for many thousands of the public. I believe that we are very fortunate indeed to have such men serving in our Armed Forces and that we can all be justly proud of them.
Understandably, hon. Members have referred to the defence review. They would not expect me today to say any more than has already been said. We have just had a defence debate, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said then and in his statement to the House on 21st March, our aim in the circumstances of the review is to maintain a modern and effective defence system. To this end we are examining our defence commitments and capabilities, including those of the Royal Marines. I assure the House that we are well aware of the considerations hon. Members have so properly highlighted in the debate.
We shall have very much in mind the tremendous human resources we have in the Royal Marines, their fine record of service during the Second World War and since, given in almost all the operational theatres which have involved British forces, from Palestine to Borneo, and we will equally have fully in mind the important and special contribution which the Royal Marines continue to make to the defence of Britain and in support of NATO.
We shall publish the results of our review in a White Paper just as soon as we can. In the meantime I can only emphasise that anything hon. Members may have read or heard about the outcome of the review is nothing more than speculation and should be treated as such. I can say with absolute conviction that among those of us involved in the review, whether we be Ministers, senior civil servants or senior officers, there is no inclination to discuss what is going on at this stage with any representatives of the Press, however distinguished they may believe themselves to be. No new decisions have been taken about the future of the Royal Marines and their amphibious capability or on any other aspect of defence expenditure.
My right hon. Friend has referred to NATO as the linchpin of our security, and as such it will have first call on the available resources. I should therefore like to say something about the present role of the Royal Marines and their amphibious capability in this context.
The whole of the amphibious force, which in one shape or another has been in existence for over 300 years, is declared to NATO. Today this force comprises the specialist ships "Bulwark", "Hermes", "Fearless" and "Intrepid", the naval helicopter squadrons and the four Royal Marine commando groups. Their job is to provide reinforcement forces which are able to react instantly to a threat of aggression, particularly in Norway and the Mediterranean.
Their sheer versatility as a self-contained, flexible fighting unit makes them a valuable component of NATOs deterrent forces. No other European country, it is worth remarking, currently contributes a full amphibious capability to NATO. Hon. Members will no doubt be aware of the professionalism—indeed, they have emphasised it in the debate— with which, for example, 45 Commando, the only fully ski-trained and equipped unit in the British Forces, has prepared itself for mountain and arctic warfare. The annual exercises in Norway admirably demonstrate their very high degree of competence in this sphere. It has been highly praised by senior Norwegian officers who have seen the Marines exercising.
In the Mediterranean, their colleagues in 41 Commando, some of whom I


met during my recent visit to Malta, have recently taken part in a major NATO amphibious exercise, "Dawn Patrol", with forces of other nations. This proved a great success and is not untypical ot the multinational co-operation which is a feature of the Royal Marines today.
I turn now to the ships themselves. HMS "Hermes" was converted to the commando ship role last year at Devon-port and was fitted out to carry Wessex troop-carrying helicopters with a guided weapon capability. The opportunity was taken at the same time to improve the standards of accommodation in the ship for the embarked Royal Marine commando group. I have been over "Hermes" very briefly myself and I know that everyone is pleased with the refitting job which has been done on her. She is now about to cross the Atlantic for a joint amphibious exercise with the Canadian Armed Forces.
The other commando ship, HMS "Bulwark", which I visited with the hon. and learned Member for Colchester and other hon. Members in the Mediterranean last year, was converted for the commando ship rôle some years ago. She has been doing a first-class job and is currently undergoing refit at Devonport. This will include a long overdue improvement in her accommodation standards.
The two assault ships, "Fearless" and "Intrepid", are also continuing to serve, with their special capability for carrying and landing tanks and heavy equipment. HMS "Fearless" is currently combining this role with that of the Darmouth cadet training ship. She, too, participated in "Dawn Patrol" and is now on a visit to Italy. Her sister ship, HMS "Intrepid", is now being refitted at Portsmouth.
In emphasising the current role of the Royal Marines in NATO, however, we must not lose sight of their other important tasks. They provide detachments for a large number of Her Majesty's ships as well as a garrison for the Falkland Islands. Various specialist groups are trained in amphibious reconnaissance and, of course, the Royal Marines take their turn alongside Army units in Northern Ireland. All four commando groups have served there. At the moment it is the turn of 42 Commando. The Royal Marines also assist in anti-smuggling patrols in Northern Ireland waters.
I cannot praise the Royal Marines too highly for the way they are carrying out their work in Northern Ireland in such appallingly difficult circumstances. I hope lo go to Northern Ireland once again in the near future to bring myself fully up to date with the work which the Royal Marines are doing in the Province.
It is appropriate that I should draw attention to one of the less-publicised facets of their presence—the care and concern with which Royal Marines contribute constructively to the civil community. For example, in Belfast the Marines have organised Outward Bound and adventure training camps for young people, served on community centre committees and arranged recreational trips for pensioners and children. In this work they have bridged religious and political differences and in every way tried to introduce an element of humanity into a thoroughly difficult situation. This community work applies not only to Northern Ireland. Wherever they serve the Royal Marines are involved with the local community. The Wilkinson Sword of Peace has been awarded twice to 40 Commando —for its community relations work in Borneo during the confrontation with Indonesia and again for its work in Belfast in the summer of 1972.
All in all, this amounts to a r61e which is thoroughly attuned to our present-day needs—a highly-skilled, highly-trained, mobile and versatile force fully assimilated into NATO and national plans and able to make a clear contribution to peace and stability.
What is particularly useful is the ability of the Marines to provide a point of entry for a more permanent force to follow. Their diverse abilities and talents also enable them to make a quick response to any United Nation peace-keeping requirement, and they did that as long ago as the Korean war when, in the early 1950s, they fought and worked alongside the United States Marine Corps under the United Nations flag. They also have a capability for disaster relief, such as in the case of the floods in East Pakistan in 1971 when they were able to provide immediate and desperately-needed assistance.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester raised two points which were not altogether unexpected in view of


his keenness about the Marines. As regards recruiting, by and large we have been fulfilling expectations with the Royal Marines in recent years and there have been more recent signs of an upturn in recruiting to this elite band, as it has been described in the House. I am sure everyone will welcome that. The hon. and learned Member also referred to the bounty and to the reserves. I am sorry if he misinterpreted anything I might have said recently in the heat of exchange at Question Time. I did not intend a severe personal criticism, but it really is a pity that during the time the hon. and learned Gentleman was Minister he was not able to persuade his Government to take the action which he was keen they should adopt. It is always disappointing for Ministers when they fail in their priorities, and I am sure that the House feels for the hon. and learned Member in his frustration. Let us hope that he can persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends in opposition in future to share his views on those things on which we agree.
I have put my position on this issue quite clearly in the House and I repeat it now. I must await the outcome of the review into the role of the reserves which was initiated by the hon. and learned Member and which he was right to establish in order that we may have a defined future for the reserves.
The Royal Marines as an entity are a peace-keeping force in every sense, and I can assure the House that this will be in the forefront of the Government's thinking in the months ahead.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PARA-MEDICAL PROFESSIONS)

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I wish to raise an entirely different subject from the last debate. It concerns the paramedical services of the National Health Service. I have been assured by a substantial number of professional people that though we have discussed disability in this House on previous occasions we have never discussed the para-medical professions as such. I pay a tribute at the outset of my speech to the Library of the House for having gathered so much information for me.
When I began this exercise I was concerned mainly with radiographers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and remedial gymnasts, but up to the moment of entering the Chamber today I have been receiving messages from other professional people within the health service. I have thanked the Library for its efforts, but I regret that I cannot use all the material it provided.
There is a common thread running through every submission I have received from every para-medical profession. If I can insert a "commercial" at this point, may I say that should I fail to mention any of the para-medical professions, if they write to me I shall try to raise their case with the appropriate Minister. The common theme that runs through every submission is that the Whitley Council is a dead loss for negotiating. The Government and the Opposition must get it clear that the Whitley Council is not a place for negotiation; it is a place which is visited by Treasury officials who are armed with figures and who sit on one side of the table and state "That is the offer." There are no negotiations. The system makes a mockery of unionism.
Every submission I have received has been deeply concerned about the quality and status of the profession in question. These people are anxious to get better recognition, and they are anxious to do more. They are desperately keen to keep up to date with events, and, above all, they would like to involve themselves in research. These are very worthy aims. I was delighted to read last night that my debate had been anticipated and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced that Lord Halsbury will chair an inquiry, that the nurses deservedly will get their increase, and that the inquiry will also cover physiotherapists, radiographers, dieticians, chiropodists, the occupational therapists and so on. We must be extremely careful about the "and so on", because if they were omitted that would leave out a most important group of people who do a good job in the health service.
I think that the pay problem will now be resolved, but we need to move on and raise the status and dignity of the para-medical professions. There is the question of rehabilitation, which involves


good teamwork throughout the paramedical professions. Then there are the radiographers. We assume that these are the people who help the medical men to diagnose the problem, and that is true. But the shortage of radiographers is such that with the therapy work they do, particularly in connection with cancer, there are just not enough people to do the work.
We must all collectively accept responsibility. It would be easy for me to attack the previous Government, but the complaints in this respect have been ignored for up to five years, and that means ignored by successive Governments. Perhaps, in view of the position of the Whitley Council negotiations, the employers must share some responsibility. If they simply accept the statements made by the Treasury no progress can be made, and they must have seen the decline of facilities in the health service. Hon. Members, whether on Front Bench or back bench, must accept responsibility, and so, for that matter, must the public outside. We are all involved in the health scene. The fact that radiography treatment is sometimes not given through the service is a disgrace to our nation.
I quote from a letter written to the Secretary of State by the Society of Radiographers:
I am sure you know that there is a serious shortage of radiographers and this shortage is being accentuated by the drift of radiographers from National Health Service appointments to take up work with Agencies where they enjoy payments far in excess of those paid to National Health Service radiographers with whom they may be working. Such a situation creates considerable instability in X-ray Departments, and impairs not only the standards of the profession but also the service to the Department and particularly the service to the patient.
I hope that I shall not hear any cheap party political points made in this debate, because we are all responsible for this situation. We should tackle this serious problem now. One eminent rehabilitation medical man assured me that if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave me an assurance today that he would do everything in his power, the requisite supply of these essential people would still be three, four or five years away.
The medical laboratory technologists are also concerned that they are not sufficiently recognised. Their institute states:

Medical laboratory technology demands substantial professional attainment and an obligation to become state registered; a professional code of ethics must be observed and high standards of conduct are required in the exercise of judgment, skill and responsibility for the life and well-being of patients.
We pay such people a miserable pittance and yet give high rewards to "pop" singers and "pop" stars.
The chiropodists have made a similar submission. The president of their organisation, in his presidential address at Blackpool in April this year, said:
We do not look on the service which we provide as palliative
as we normally do.
Our contribution is not only the relief of pain—though in all conscience this is important enough; we, by an effective school chiropody service, can stop the development of conditions which could be disabling in later life; we can keep people mobile who would otherwise be housebound; we can teach the young, the elderly, the sick and infirm how to look after their feet. We surely save the country a very large sum of money each year by keeping people active who might in the absence of treatment and/or advice fill the doctors' surgeries and go on the 'sick list'.
We tend to despise the profession of chiropody, but we sometimes desperately need its service.
Everybody in the para-medical professions is desperately anxious to raise the status and standard of his profession and of its teaching.
I promised to mention the dieticians, and I had better do so, otherwise I shall be in trouble. One dietician has written to me saying:
Nutritional knowledge is advancing all the time, and we are finding out how dietetics plays a preventive and curative part in many disorders and diseases. The role of a National Health Service dietician is that of an expert on the application of nutritional knowledge for the benefit of all patients in all types of hospitals. Surely an expert should be paid as such.
I wish to make a collective plea. I hope that the occupational therapists, remedial gymnasts and physiotherapists will forgive me—because they are my friends—if I group them together, as they did themselves for the purposes of the MacMillan Report. They perform vital skills and are in professions which can play a major part in rehabilitation. The difficulty is that if they play their part there will be severe shortages in other sectors of the health service. A tremendous


injection of trained people into these three professions is needed.
I am in a dilemma, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that one hon.
Member has dropped out of the list of Members raising Adjournment debates. Consequently, my speech can be short or
long——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): One hon. Member dropped out, but has been reinstated. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should stick strictly to the timetable on the Order Paper.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It has been proved across the river at St. Thomas's Hospital by people like Dr. Geoffrey Spencer and by the work of people like Philip Nicholls at Mary Marlborough Lodge in Oxford that severely handicapped people, if given proper rehabilitation facilities, can return to their homes and lead full and independent lives. The two men I have just named—and there are others—believe that they lead teams. They think that they are part of a team and that the physiotherapists, social workers, remedial gymnasts and occupational therapists, together with nurses and the skills of other medical people, can help people to return to their homes. I am not advocating a cut-back in expenditure on the health service. I am merely calling for the intelligent application of rehabilitation services so that many more people may be able to live happily in their own homes.
To achieve that, we shall require more people at work in the para-medical professions. That is why the physiotherapists, occupational therapists and remedial gymnasts must be given maximum support.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I respect the emphasis which the hon. Gentleman puts on the para-medical services, but how does he relate the priority which should be given to them to other priorities in the National Health Service? I have particularly in mind the rate of remuneration of mental health nurses, particularly those in the lower grades.

Mr. Carter-Jones: That is the trouble of having a short debate. I have not time to deal with that question, but I

assure the hon. Gentleman—he is an honourable Friend in the sense that we travel home in the train together—that a tremendous amount of rehabilitation work is being done in mental health. I have not time to touch on that matter. A tremendous amount of work is being done on rehabilitating geriatrics. I have not time to deal with that matter. All this means that there will be even bigger demands made on the para-medical services.
I conclude with a quotation from a letter from a great friend of mine and of this House, Mary Greaves, who pressurised some of us in the years before the "Alf Morris Act" and who succeeded Megan du Boisson as the Director of the Disablement Income Group. She says:
I would like to emphasise the importance of really good rehabilitation. In my own case, without the excellent rehabilitation I received at Mary Marlborough Lodge, at 67 I would be in a geriatric ward.
She is saying that, given good rehabilitation, many people who are now in long-stay hospitals would not be there.
I will not quote one more individual para-medical profession. But I say that the sooner we make proper financial provision for the para-medical professions, the sooner we give them proper professional status, the sooner we provide them with research facilities, and the sooner we provide them with good job prospects, the sooner we shall return to the concept of the National Health Service as envisaged so long ago by Aneurin Bevan.

1.1 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: As did a number of hon. Members in yesterday's debate on nurses' pay, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) prefaced his remarks by saying that he hoped no one would make cheap party political points. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House echo that sentiment, because we are all in the same position of having grave concern about the para-medical professions.
I have today received a letter from a constituent, a radiographer, who tells me that three years of training and years of skilful dedication brought him last month, a full working month with on-call payments, £3 more than his heating


bill. He received £90, and his heating bill was £87. That is a fearful position.
I do not want to make cheap party political points. I want to tell the House that the para-medical professions are sick and tired of both parties' tactics of giving them a report by way of a palliative, and finding an elderly worthy who is dusted off and set up in an upstairs room to consider the future of, say, speech therapists.
One of my first surgery calls last July after I became Member for the Isle of Ely was from a lady speech therapist who asked me about the future of the Quirk Report. She wondered when it would be published and when it would be implemented. I and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have tabled Questions about the report. There is a great shortage of speech therapists. Speech therapists who hoped for so much from Quirk are going into other professions because they have neither the honour that should go with the job nor the money. In my constituency, where there is an urgent demand for speech therapy, speech therapists have gone to ground. Many of my constituents are in desperate need.
It is not enough for the Minister to say "It will be all right. We have an elderly gentleman sitting somewhere considering your problems." As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) said yesterday, shortages beget shortages. If there are 400 advertisements for speech therapists, such speech therapists as exist decide that they are in the wrong profession, because if they stay in it they will be overworked and useless.
I urge the Minister to have more action instead of having more reports, and to let people see not only the colour of his money but perhaps the value of his support and his endorsement.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Alec Woodall: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) for unavoidably missing the beginning of his speech, but I am sure that he will have covered all grades in the para-medical professions.
I want to make a special plea on behalf of radiographers. As a miner, I

am particularly concerned about them as I have been X-rayed many times, as have all my ex-colleagues in the pits, because of the dangers of disease caused by dust.
I was appalled when I was canvassed by a constituent who is a radiographer, who explained that radiographers have a starting salary putting them at a disadvantage of £625 a year compared with someone entering the National Health Service as a clerk. Even after 10 years' full-time service, radiographers still find themselves at a disadvantage of £278 a year. It shows an error in the valuation of the contribution made by people in the health service that a clerk after 10 year's service is still more than £5 a week better off than someone giving 10 years' valuable service in an essential part of the medical profession.
On behalf of all miners who have to be X-rayed periodically to check and control the dreaded mining diseases, I make a special plea for radiographers. We owe a great deal to the dedicated people within that part of the medical profession.

1.7 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on initiating the debate. I support everything he said, apart from his remarks about party political jibes, because this is not a subject that divides hon. Members. We all feel the need to do more about the nurses and to support them, and even more to support the other services that go with them, because they are an integrated whole in the National Health Service. As this is the season for declaring interests, I must declare that I have a major medical interest in improving their circumstances.
The nurses have the sympathy of us all. We support them and welcome the proposals of yesterday, but I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not see fit to make an immediate salary payment. We have all watched their deteriorating position in the health service with horror. This would have been the time to give a definite sum of money, because we know that their salaries will have to be improved.
The hon. Member for Eccles talked about the shortage of radiographers,


physiotherapists and speech therapists. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) mentioned the urgent need to implement the Quirk Report for the speech therapists. That will not only increase the numbers of them coming into training. They desperately need to have put in order their standards, their whole way of organising themselves. They need a much more effective central body. Until they have that, the discrepancies of training and working conditions between one part of the country and another are bound to put people off going into the service.
Just as important as the services that have been mentioned are those of other para-medical and supporting services; for example, the plaster technicians. They are desperately needed in orthopaedic departments. Theatre technicians are also of great importance, for an efficient modern operating theatre cannot be run without the supporting staff to see that the equipment is maintained and that the theatres are cleaned to the standards that major operations today need. This is also true of dental mechanics, not the dentists alone, but those who support them, those who make the plates and do the skilled engineering that goes with modern dentistry.
Perhaps even worse is the shortage of technicians in the pathology departments where blood samples are taken for skilled analysis. The technicians is these departments are underpaid and overworked, and they change so repeatedly that they often do not know where the materials are within their own laboratories because they have not been there long enough to find out.
Things of this sort do not get the headlines and do not get investigated, but they are a running sore and a source of dismay in the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about them. There is a need to review not only the salaries of these people, but their status, job prospects and their opportunities for research.

1.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. David Owen): My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has been fortunate in being able to focus attention on the wider

issues of this debate. Had this matter come before the House before yesterday, the debate would rightly have concentrated on pay. I do not want to hide from the House my belief that pay lies at the root of many of our current problems, but that issue was dealt with yesterday. It is our intention that the results of the inquiry for the nurses should be applied to those in the professions supplementary to medicine whose pay has been traditionally linked to that of the nurses. We propose to discuss with those concerned, through the Whitley Council machinery, how best to link them and in what way they wish to be linked to the nurses.
It is right that the debate should have concentrated on the wider issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles drew especial attention to what he described as status and standards. I have read with considerable interest the Report on the Remedial Professions that was prepared by the working party under the chairmanship of Mr. McMillan. No one can read that report without recognising that there is a considerable anxiety, which has not been assuaged by the publication of the Tunbridge Report. I pay my tribute to the considerable personal interest of the previous Secretary of State in the remedial professions; it resulted in this special working party being established. We are giving considerable thought to the main conclusions, which appear in paragraph 63.
That report stresses the need for the development of a comprehensive and unified therapy profession, increased professional and managerial responsibility, a new career and salary structure reflecting new methods of training and new responsibilities, the increased use and recognition of aides and other supporting staff, and the need for research, which many hon. Members have mentioned. I promise the House that we shall look at this matter urgently. I share the view that intelligent application of rehabilitation can undoubtedly save money. There is no doubt, whether one is dealing with geriatrics, the mentally handicapped, or even people with serious injuries, that prompt application of rehabilitation can get them out of hospital and into their own homes, and so reduce the cost to the National Health Service.
However, there are immense problems. One of them is the remarkable expansion of the professions supplementary to medicine that has occurred since 1949. In 1949 the hospital service in England and Wales employed only 791 occupational therapists, 3,100 physiotherapists and 2,063 radiographers. The 1973 figures represent increases of 115 per cent., 47 per cent. and 155 per cent. respectively, and those are substantial increases.
Recruitment is a major problem, and, of course, pay is a major factor in that problem. But it is not the only issue. A career that is attractive needs to be fully satisfying, and that is one reason why we are right to attach importance to the whole career structure. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) drew particular attention to speech therapists and had some strictures to make about inquiries and commissions. I share his view. There is a terrible tendency, when the facts are well known and all that is required is action, to establish yet another committee. The Quirk Report was accepted by the previous administration, with some important qualifications about timing, but, as the hon. Member knows from answers to his Questions, we are considering the whole matter afresh, and I hope that we shall be able to do some of the things in which the hon. Member has taken an especial interest.
Radiographers were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). If I may say so, I am glad that he entered the debate, because the mining industry has a long-standing interest in rehabilitation. I have spent much of my time talking to representatives of the mining industry about the problem of the Firbank Rehabilitation Centre and others. This is mainly a management problem, and the Government have been able to meet many of the representations and to retain some of the distinctive characteristics of mining rehabilitation centres.
It must be admitted that some hospitals have substantially fewer radiographers than they would like, and some are certainly too short of staff for the full provision of the services that they would wish to provide. Where such staffing difficulties occur, the health authorities will make adjustments to the radiology services. I recognise that this kind of

adjustment can lead to delay for some patients and that priority must be given to urgent cases, but we shall do everything possible to minimise the inconvenience. We must see whether we can improve recruitment, which in the first place is a matter for the area health authorities, and I am reviewing current methods of advertising, as I said in reply to a Question, for these and a range of other people in the National Health Service as part of our search for improved methods of stimulating recruitment.
Similarly, I acknowledge the problem of wastage. In part this is inevitable in these predominantly female jobs, but we are looking at ways and means of encouraging married women who are already qualified to return to practice in the National Health Service when they are able to do so. That means flexible working hours and making a job as attractive as possible. Personally, I do not exclude the need for having facilities for looking after young children in hospitals if we are to get young mothers to come back to work in hospitals. Just as industry has seen the necessity of providing facilities for the under-5s, so the hospitals will have to take that aspect into account.
There is a shortage of teachers of physiotherapists, which must affect the rate of growth and the rate of intake. We shall be thoroughly studying problems of this kind as part of our overall look at the Report on the Remedial Professions.
There are other aspects that I should like to mention. The remedial professions are essentially members of a rehabilitation team. This concept of people from different disciplines—doctors, therapists, social workers, nurses, disablement resettlement officers and others, and I include voluntary workers—working together in a co-ordinated manner to provide treatment and assessment is of great importance. We are anxious to see medical rehabilitation services improve and become more uniformly distributed throughout the country.
The Tunbridge Report pointed to a number of ways in which these services might develop, and the hospital demonstration centres—eight of which were announced by the previous administration—are intended as focal points throughout the country from which area


and district services will spread. I am happy to say that we shall be announcing more very soon and that consultants from the centres will be attending a conference in June to discuss how the best use can be made of their contribution.
Without therapists, rehabilitation services cannot grow as we would wish. The 1974 report has made some far-reaching recommendations, including integrated training and some of the other matters that I mentioned. Not all the views have yet been received from the various bodies which we felt necessary to consult about this important report, but there has already been some very useful and constuctive comment, and a number of suggestions for a way ahead are beginning to emerge.
One problem, of course, is who is to pay for all this? But again I think that there is a general feeling in the House, which emerged from yesterday's debate, that the Government's emphasis on people first and foremost in the National Health Service is the correct priority. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise this when they press for all the other admirable projects which they want to see brought into being.
Activity is already under way. We are exploring with the local people concerned the feasibility of some development studies on the new management relationships proposed. A study has been commissioned by the King's Fund into the content of an integrated syllabus of training for occupational therapists and physiotherapists. There have been discussions with the local authority associations and others about liaison between health and local authorities on the deployment of occupational therapists. The new collaboration machinery offers an effective way of looking at the problems of making the best use of skilled but scarce resources, and guidance is being drawn up in consultation with those concerned. Even if we improve the pay, the advertising, and the recruitment, and even if we cut down on wastage, I suspect that we shall still have fewer people than we need. As so often is the case, one of our resource shortages is not just money. It is the skilled man and woman power, and how we use it most effectively is a matter of fundamental

importance. It follows that the management issue is of great importance.
Further ways of linking medical rehabilitation with employment services are also under study, and we are anxious to encourage research into all forms of rehabilitation techniques. An active programme is in train inside the Department. It was started by our predecessors, and we shall carry it out and give it a new impetus within the terms and resources available to us.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, I have seen constantly the advantages of the rehabilitation services and the remarkable change which can occur in someone who may have languished for too long in a hospital or an institutional home and who, with the application of skilled rehabilitation techniques, becomes a completely different person, going back into the community and often suddenly capable of looking after a house. It is quite remarkable. But most of us see all too few examples in our constituencies of what rehabilitation can do.
There is no doubt that in terms of industrial injuries, too, speedy rehabilitation of the person injured at his place of work can often ensure that he is back at work earning a family wage far quicker than he would otherwise have been. This is a subject which has interested me for many years. Again, it represents a saving of scarce resources.
I hold strongly to the belief that money spent on rehabilitation is money well spent, provided that we can ensure that it is used effectively. If we can harness the team feeling, I think that a great deal can be done. I have often said that this House makes it comparatively easy to cut the local authority social services budget, and to reduce the amount of chiropody services. Often that can be done without a bleat from anyone. That has to be compared with the tremendous furor which will occur if a hospital programme is postponed. However, the provision of regular chiropody for old people means many of them remaining mobile and able to look after themselves and not being a cost to the community.
We need to look at this subject not just from the point of view that the provision of these services would be a good idea. There are innumerable demands on our


resources which we should all like to provide, but I believe that good rehabilitation services, to use a jargon phrase, are a cost-effective solution to many of our problems in the National Health Service. It is in that spirit that I shall look at the whole of rehabilitation.
On a personal note, I might say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles that before coming to this House I was very much involved with the Disablement Income Group, and it has remained an interest of mine. I well remember that remarkable woman Megan du Boisson who with Brit Thornberry started the Disablement Income Group. As a neurologist dealing with many of these cases in those days, it was obvious to me that our rehabilitation services were very defective. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) also speaks with considerable knowledge of these matters.
The times when money is shortest are the times to look most carefully at how the money available is spent. Lord Rutherford once said "We have no money. We must now think". This is a lesson which has to be borne in mind in the coming years. Money will be short. We have to think, to reassess the basic allocation of our resources and to put the available money and skills where they can give the greatest return.
A high candidate on that list is the overall rehabilitation services. We shall not achieve the end that we all desire if we do not attach great importance to the professions supplementary to medicine which provide our overall rehabilitation services in terms of pay, status, training and research
.
I hope that this debate has stimulated a greater interest in the subject and that perhaps we shall have rather more debates on it than we have had in the past.

NIGHT STORAGE HEATING

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the high percentage increase in the cost of off-peak and night rate electricity which is used by more than 2 million consumers mainly for central heating. The increase referred to is about 70 per cent.
The first inkling that we had of what was in store for us was in the debate on 13th March when an exchange took place between the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). We had to wait for the Budget Statement 13 days later for some light on this ominously dark situation.
However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was less than frank with the House in dealing with the subject of increased charges for electricity. He said:
Electricity prices have given us the most difficult decision. Here, too, it is right that prices should reflect the realities of the energy situation. On the other hand, if we had imposed the full increases proposed for domestic and other consumers on quarterly accounts, including pre-payment meters, this would have meant a 50 per cent. price increase. We are therefore asking the industry to restrict these increases to the amount required broadly to cover its higher fuel costs alone. Even this will mean price increases to domestic consumers averaging about 30 per cent. on bills reaching most of them from the beginning of August." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 301.]
There is no mention there of a 70 per cent. or even a 50 per cent. increase for anyone. The impression given was that the Government had shied away from the larger increase and opted for a more moderate one, and consumers were rightly shocked when the truth was brought home to them that the average domestic consumer on day and night rates would suffer an increase of about 50 per cent. in his bill.
I am at this stage dealing not with the rights or wrongs of the increase but simply with the Government's handling of the facts. I am told that this is the first time that increases in electricity charges have been announced in a Budget Statement. If so, it seems to have been a mistake, because the Chancellor did not do justice to the subject. He left himself wide open to the charge, at worst, of misleading the House and the country and, at best, of suppressing some facts that should have been made known. I make that charge and hope that the Government will answer it fully.
When mistakes of this kind are made there is usually an instantaneous reaction on the part of the public, and we had it in this instance. Consumers of off-peak electricity referred to the advertisements


that had prompted them to buy night storage heaters. I quote from one which appeared in January 1972. Its constant theme is "half-price" electricity. In retrospect it sounds humorous. Under the headline,
Overnight, Liz and Mike found they could afford electric central heating ".
it states:
Enjoy an 'overnight success'—like Liz and Mike—simply by going to White Meter for all your electricity. The White Meter supplies all electricity used overnight at half price. The electricity you use during the day is at one price, but the electricity you use during the night is half that price.
The phrase "half-price" occurs in each of the three substantive paragraphs of that advertisement, and it is all summed up with the slogan:
White Meter brings you half-price electricity overnight!
I do not know what Liz and Mike think of the situation now, because the off-peak and night consumption rate is no longer available at half price. It has gone up from 47 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the unrestricted consumption rate. Many people see this as a breach of faith, to put it mildly, on the part of a nationalised industry. I cannot say that it is a breach of contract, because I have not seen a contract which includes the phrase "half price".
I come now to the key question whether this increase was justified. The Government will in all probability say that it was foreseen by their predecessors, and will no doubt seek to put the blame on them.
We all know that the basic reason for increased electricity prices is the doubling in cost of power station fuel, which consists of a combination of oil and coal. The increase in the cost of the oil component was unavoidable, but, according to the reply given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) on 11th April, there is a tax element in it. Is that tax element still present in the cost of the oil? Has it been increased? Could it be diminished?
I should like to know how much of the increase in electricity prices is due to the miners' settlement. Again, let us have the facts, not a suppression of them, on this matter. I should like to know what the miners' settlement has meant in

terms of the increased price of coal and, indirectly, of electricity.
My second point under this heading is that the previous Government subsidised both coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate although on 17th December my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), the former Chancellor, said that it was anomalous to do so.
We now have a Government committed in principle to extending subsidies, and, indeed, still subsidising the domestic electricity consumer to the tune of £130 million to £140 million this year. But what was the thinking behind the limitation of subsidy to the off-peak user? In other words, why pick on him for this devastating increase of 70 per cent.? Could it be that the Government knew that these users had invested a lot of money in storage heaters and were unlikely to do away with them and that about 330,000 people who have under-floor heating derived from the off-peak source could do nothing about changing their heating system?
I remind the Minister—I know that he will have sympathy with these people— that the majority of those who have written to me are pensioners, the chronic sick and those who care for them and those who care for the mentally sick. I have a letter here from a lady in Nottingham who says:
I look after mental hospital day patients at my own home. As I am a widow, I have found that I have no time to grow old or suffer imaginary illnesses. It is a most satisfying occupation, for which I receive £8.50 per man per week. For this I supply two cooked meals and tea and biscuits five days per week and three cooked meals and tea and biscuits two days per week. These men are destructive and do not treat either bed clothes or furniture or carpets with any respect whatever.
However, I decided to install overnight storage heaters in all bedrooms as the men are getting old—like I am—for their extra comfort. I have installed nine. Over the last two to three quarters I have been able to cope with the bills for extra electricity, but if the price per heater goes up more then I am afraid my poor semi-senseless old souls will have to go back to hot water bottles.
My home is open to inspection and should you wish to verify my statement you can contact the Secretary at Mapperley Hospital.
That is typical of the letters that I have received.
The Government owe the country an explanation for their actions, and a statement on their future policy of charging


for off-peak electricity and on their policy of charging for gas. I am astonished at the numbers of people who have written to me in disgust at this increase who say that they are going to throw out their overnight heaters and install gas heaters. I feel obliged to warn them—I hope that the Minister will confirm this point— that, although increase in gas prices have been delayed, they are bound to go up sooner or later. At least we can save these people a certain amount of expenditure.
The Government have offended many people. These increases, coupled with increases in indirect taxes, are bound to have a deplorable effect on the retail price index, will contribute to the damaging 20 per cent. price inflation which we and others expect later this year, and will certainly wreck the lives of many people in this country.

1.39 p.m.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on initiating this debate, on the choice of subject, and on the speech that he has just made on behalf of people who will undoubtedly suffer greatly as a result of the increased price of electricity.
An unusually large number of people have chosen to go to the North-West coast to retire in attractive places like Lytham and St. Annes-on-Sea and the countryside in Fylde. Some of them are fairly well to do but many have to rely on a small amount of capital which they accumulated over a lifetime of work, and once they find that they are outstripped by rising prices they have no hope of catching up again. Others have little or no money of their own and have to fall back almost exclusively—and some exclusively—on retirement pensions.
I should like to speak on behalf of those retired people, but most strongly on behalf of those who have been tired by age and cannot fight back, and have no one to represent them. These are the people who find that the tide of rising prices is about to drown all their hopes of a dignified and contented old age. It is very difficult for someone to be dignified when he cannot afford the cost of keeping warm. Anyone who has looked after old parents or old relatives in their last years will, I am sure, understand and agree that high on the list of priorities

in old age is the need to keep warm. It is almost as important as food, and it has to be paid for.
Many old people in my constituency found an attraction that was almost irresistible in the advertisements, to which my hon. Friend referred, put out by the electricity boards, the cost of which must have run into many millions of pounds. They were told that they could get a cheap source of electricity that would do what it was essential should be done in their homes to keep them warm during the cold winter, so they bought night storage heaters and they still have them. I cannot recollect ever having had so many letters on one topic as I have received over the last few weeks by way of protest from people who say that (hey cannot see any chance of being able to afford to keep themselves warm and comfortable during the coming winter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech promised that the rise in the cost of electricity would not be more than about 30 per cent on bills from 1st May of this year, and I think that we ought to be grateful for the diligence and patience of a reporter working for the northern editions of the  Sunday Express who researched into this and discovered that, far from there being an increase of only about 30 per cent., the cost of cheap electricity for domestic consumers is to be increased by 70 per cent. over most of the country and up to 75 per cent. in the North-West. We made our protests, and we put down Questions, but we have had no satisfactory reaction from the Government.
I should like—and I welcome the opportunity of doing so—to invite the Government to say today whether they are satisfied that these increases in electricity charges are justified and, if they are satisfied, what steps they propose to take to help those who will be distressed economically in their domestic budgets by these increases, especially in the price of this cheap source of energy.
It is all very well to contemplate a reduction in the standard of living for people who can go out and, by their own efforts and initiative, do something to preserve their living standards, but the elderly cannot do that. They need help, and I beg the Government, not on any political basis or division of party opinion but on a humanitarian basis, to say today


that they will do something to help these people who stand in dire need of assistance.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) for having taken the opportunity to raise this important subject in today's debate. I am sure that the gratitude for his doing so will not be confined to this House but will be expressed by many thousands outside who will find their budgeting shattered because of the matter which my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to raise today.
I have had an enormous number of letters on this subject from my constituents. In my part of Harrow, which was developed between the wars, many retired people are living in homes which they bought in the 'twenties when they were young civil servants, teachers or employed in other professions. They do not want to leave their homes, even though their value may have greatly increased, because they are their homes, they have seen the neighbourhood develop and they have their roots in the area.
Many of my constituents are living on fixed retirement pensions and other savings income, and it is hardly necessary for their difficulties to be stressed in the House today. Those with savings and retirement incomes of between £1,500 and £2,500 a year are having the greatest difficulty in maintaining the standards which they have tried to provide for themselves. These are the people who, by their own provision, have sought to prevent themselves from becoming a burden on the community. They want to be independent and look after themselves.
Many of them did not have large capital sums at their disposal. They wanted to use what capital they had for income, so instead of installing full central heating they succumbed to the advertising campaign and installed night storage heaters because they felt that in that way they would keep down their overheads and running expenses. It is almost inconceivable that, at the stroke of a pen, they should be expected to pay double the increase to be paid by the user of the ordinary electric supply. This is a disgraceful example of insensitive manage-

ment, from whichever source the decision came.
There is growing resentment in my constituency over what is considered to be a "con" trick by a nationalised industry on a group of people. Because it is a nationalised industry, the dishonour rubs off on to the Government and on to Parliament. The reputation of this House has not been unsullied in recent months, neither has it been improved by certain additions to the Honours List announced last night. I hope that the Government and the Minister this afternoon will do something to restore a sense of honour in our nationalised industries and those industries which are controlled by the Government and by Parliament.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I should like to draw the Minister's attention to some broad aspects of this problem which are certainly within his competence. I refer to public relations and the way in which this unfair charge, as we would describe it, has been introduced without proper explanation to many pensioners.
What adds particular insult to injury is that those who have received their electricity demands in the last few days find that they contain not a word of explanation of the increases. All they find with their normal demand is an advertisement for a "super-value" Electra washing machine, offering special prices "for a limited period only". In the light of this saga, anyone receiving an offer of that kind will, I am sure look at it in a sideways direction.
If nothing else, one of the most important tasks is to make clear to consumers exactly how these charges are made up and how they are justified. I therefore join my hon. Friends in calling for assurances from the Minister not only of the basis on which the charges have been put together but about the way in which the Government will explain to all concerned why they face this unfair burden.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) for raising this important subject. The theme of the speeches has


been consistent. The dramatic rise in off-peak electricity tariffs, coming on top of the other shocks that consumers are experiencing in these inflationary days, has caused more dismay and alarm among pensioners than among any other section of the population.
What rankles in the minds of the 2 million families who possess night storage heaters is the feeling that they have been misled by the electricity industry. For 10 years a clever and successful selling campaign has persuaded many people to install these systems as a long-term measure. They were represented not just as cheaper than normal electric systems but as being competitive with other forms of heating. Now, suddenly, in an across-the-board increase, off-peak electricity jumps nearly 70 per cent. in cost.
The full impact of such a sharp rise will not be felt until the autumn, but already many hon. Members are showing their concern by their Questions and by their statements to Ministers. They have been pointing out the unfairness of the new charges and their doubts about the sales promotion schemes used until recently by appliance manufacturers and retailers. Electricity boards claim to have ceased Press advertising 18 months ago, but television advertising continued until recently, with several stores offering advantageous terms.
Is the Minister satisfied that no misleading advertising has taken place since the decision was made to increase charges? I should also like him to ensure that the public are now made fully aware of the new tariffs. Does he know the number of night storage heaters held in stock? There could now be a cut-price selling campaign based on outdated costs.
I am sure we are all concerned about the impact of these charges on the elderly and disabled, who have often installed those heaters under special free installation schemes. Such a couple wrote to me:
My wife and I, aged 76 and 77 years, were advised by our doctor to install some form of heating. I suffer from bronchitis and my wife is arthritic, so two years ago we bought 3 night storage heaters, which were installed free under some scheme for the elderly.

We have enjoyed two comfortable winters, but with the anticipated 70 per cent. increase in the cost of running these, I am afraid we shall be unable to use them even with the extra pension. Can something be done in this case for the elderly? I am sure there are many others in this position or worse.
I am sure that that letter is indicative of the many letters that hon. Members on both sides of the House have received.
It has been argued that the oil crisis and its effect on electricity generating costs means that an across-the-board increase of 0.3p a unit has to be made. That is an over-simplification. It is probably easier to administer but it is rough justice to the off-peak consumer, who has been led up the garden path by subtle and effective advertising.
Of course we knew that electricity tariffs would have to rise, but does not the Minister agree that, even assuming a doubling of generating fuel costs, it is still a rough and ready method to apportion the overall increase in unit costs equally on the cheaper marginal night electricity and the expensive peak-hour generation? In any case, during this vital battle against rising prices would it not have been more sensible and conducive to public unity to avoid such a sharp and dramatic jump in this one area of heating?
How can people be expected to understand the problems of Government when on the one hand, we see massive subsidies and stifling price controls yet in the one area where the Government have direct control—in the nationalised industries—there are violent surges in prices? During the last three and a half years, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister, he was taunted with a familiar slogan, misquoted of course, about a pledge to cut prices at a stroke. During his efforts to combat rising prices he took action to restrain prices in the public sector. With the rises in price of coal petrol and electricity, the present Government have, at a series of strokes, given a massive impetus to the prices spiral. The cost-of-living index figures to be released later today will. I am sure, cause grave concern.
I hope that the Minister will be able to look again at these charges and take steps to spread the load a little more fairly.

1.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): The whole House will be indebted to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). There can be no doubt, to judge from the volume of correspondence that we have received, that he has articulated a strong point of view which is properly held. I have received details of 204 cases from hon. Members and 244 from the general public. It is right that we should argue this matter, but it is improper to use this debate, as one hon. Member did, to attack nationalised industries and their dedicated staff. Nor do I know how the honours system managed to get into a debate on electricity.
The new charges for electricity for night storage heaters is only one aspect of increased electricity prices. If we are to debate this issue we must examine it in context. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in his Budget Statement why substantial electricity price increases were unavoidable, particularly if we were to avoid an unnacceptable level of Exchequer support and reflect the realities of the energy situation. I may want to come on to that matter if I have time, particularly with regard to the allegations against my right hon. Friend, which cannot be substantiated by fact or by a careful reading of HANSARD and various statements made by Ministers.
In round terms, however, the electricity boards faced the prospect of a deficit this year of about £500 million— a very substantial deficit. Something had to be done by the present Government to cut this down. As the worsening prospect was due mainly to the sudden and massive increase in the industry's fuel costs, it makes sense that it should be tackled on this front. I concede frankly to all hon. Members that it was not an easy decision.
To get close to break-even, the boards needed an overall price increase of 50 per cent. for domestic and other quarterly consumers. But, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget Statement, we asked the electricity boards to restrict the increase to the amount required broadly to cover the higher fuel costs alone. That is the reason for these domestic price increases,

which will average about 30 per cent. overall.
We have been asked why there is to be the much higher percentage increase in the off-peak and night rates for electricity used for storage heaters. The answer is that the price increase to cover the increased fuel cost will be secured through fuel cost adjustment clauses; in short, paying for the fuel used. This will make a uniform addition to all unit charges for electricity. The percentage increase will, therefore, be higher for the off-peak and night rates—to which I shall refer as off-peak rates for short— because these rates were, and will still be, lower than the ordinary rates.
We have been asked why we could not do something to subsidise the cost in order to lessen the burden of this aspect to the off-peak user. That is what we have done. There will be a subsidy; and, whilst the percentage increases in off-peak rates is bigger, the off-peak units will remain, as they were previously, about 0.5 cheaper than ordinary units. The off-peak rates consist mainly of the cost of fuel burned to produce the electricity. The fuel clause will recover from off-peak consumers, as from ordinary-rate consumers, the increased fuel costs of supplying their units.
The small consumer will pay a little more; the big consumer will pay quite a bit more. This applies to night storage as to other consumption. This is fair, and it is sensible in the new energy market, which has so suddenly radically changed following the massive oil price increases.
I hope that hon. Members will remember—the facts are on record—that the previous Government recognised the need for price changes of this kind. As long ago as 17th December, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer was telling the House that
At a time of the most acute energy shortage and in our present financial difficulties, it is anomalous—to say the least—that we are subsidising coal and electricity prices at a mounting rate." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 962.]
That was true. The present Government have taken action.
We were also told by the previous Government's spokesman on energy, on 13th March that they had accepted the principle of a domestic fuel clause, the


clause which I have tried to explain. There again, we have acted to allow the clause, with the consequences that I have described for the different ordinary and night rates.
It has been suggested, however, that my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement suppressed the facts about the higher percentage increases for off-peak rates. My right hon. Friend could not be expected to go into the detail of every part of his total Budget Statement. But no one has tried to mislead anyone. The electricity industry announced at the time that the average 30 per cent. increase would come through the fuel clause, expected to add 0.3p to the price of every unit. I myself took a very early opportunity to illustrate to the House on 1st April, when replying to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), how the price increases would vary according to the amount and type of consumption.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the Minister consider that it was misleading on the part of the Chancellor to say that if the domestic consumer had to bear the full charges his bills would increase by 50 per cent. but as he would not be asked to bear the full charges the increases that he was agreeing to would be 30 per cent., and then for 2 million electricity consumers on day and night rates to be subject to increases, as from next August, of about 50 per cent.? Is not that misleading?

Mr. Eadie: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has only repeated what he said in his speech. If I have time, I shall show how the hon. Gentleman has been very selective in his quotations and in the accusation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had misled the House. I have here other extracts from what my right hon. Friend said. He did not mislead the House. Hon. Members know very well that when the present Government came into office we inherited the three-day working week. They know perfectly well that we were in an energy crisis which was bound to refect on the situation that we faced in relation not only to the general economy but to the whole question of the cost of energy. I become concerned when right hon. and hon. Members seem to forget that there was then a war in the Middle East and energy crisis. Vol. 874
I should like to quote what my right hon. Friend said, in reply to the selective quotation given by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. In his Budget Statement my right hon. Friend said:
I cannot believe that the previous Government would not have taken action to deal with deficits on this appalling scale.
A deficit of £550 million was lying on the desk when we came to office. Therefore, it is not a question of trying to blame someone. It was the hon. Member for Conway who initiated the debate and it is his right hon. and hon. Friends who are complaining about costs of energy. But the contribution which they made to the present mess in relation to energy sparked off many of our present problems.
In the Budget Statement my right hon. Friend also said:
We could not allow the existing state of affairs to go on. Costs had to be reflected more closely in prices. There is no other way of avoiding a heavy excess of demand for the products concerned, the uneconomic use of resources the collapse of all financial disciplines, and an unacceptable level of support by the Government." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974: Vol. 871, c. 300.]

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members  rose——

Mr. Eadie: I shall not give way, certainly not to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page). He has no contribution to make. If hon. Members want answers, I must be allowed the time to give them. Perhaps I am not giving the answers that the hon. Gentleman would like. The hon. Gentleman talked about compassion and understanding for the elderly. We on this side need no lectures from him or from any of his hon. Friends on that subject. This Government have said that in July they will increase old-age pensions to £10 and £16 and heating allowances for the elderly. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that. The purport of his remarks was that he was concerned about costs for the elderly. He should have referred to the fact that pensions are to be greatly increased in July.
It has been said that we should take cognisance of this point. We have already taken cognisance of that point. I concede that a Government who were not concerned about the important issue the hon. Gentleman raised would be a


very foolish Government. This Government listen and learn and are receptive to the point of view expressed by hon. Members. If hon. Members want to make a political football of it, they must not resent it if I reply in kind.
I was dealing with what my right hon. Friend said and with the allegation that he had in his Budget Statement suppressed the situation we are in. No one is trying to mislead anyone. The electricity industry announced at the time that the average 30 per cent. increase would come through the fuel clause and would be 0.3p on every unit.
On 1st April I told the House what effect the increase would have and said:
My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the industry is efficient and economical. As far as the effect on consumers' bills is concerned, the small domestic consumer may expect to pay only about 10 per cent. more—for example, 3p per week; the average domestic consumer may expect to pay 30 per cent. more, which is just over 25p per week; and the large domestic consumer with a high proportion of off-peak and night use may expect to pay nearly 50 per cent. more in some cases—for example 75p per week." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 873.]
I do not deny that this is substantial in relation to some people's income. Of course it is. I am answering the charge that there was an attempt by Ministers to mislead the House. This charge cannot be substantiated on any objective analysis of what the Government have done.
It has been said that the industry's early campaign for promoting half-price electricity was misleading and that these new off-peak charges are cheating those who installed off-peak central heating. This is chiefly a point for the industry. However, from what I have seen I do not think that the public have been cheated. Off-peak rates were half price for many years, but I am not aware that there was any commitment that the percentage relationship to ordinary rates should remain precisely the same for all time.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannan) will concede that I strongly advocated in the House that the nation should pay more attention to the coal industry. I admit that my advocacy fell on deaf ears, not only on the Tory benches but also amongst my hon. Friends. I campaigned vigorously for a substantial coal industry. I warned the House constantly of what would happen

if we allowed the coal industry to contract. I said that there would be a serious energy crisis based on cost.
That is precisely what happened. Arising from the Middle East crisis and the last miners' strike, we discovered that the nation had been wrong to contract its mining industry. It would be wrong for anyone to pose as a prophet and predict what will happen. It is also wrong to say that the electricity boards practised deception on the general public. The electricity industry may well have acted under the delusion that there would be an abundance of cheap oil and other energy and that cheap rates for off-peak electricity would continue indefinitely. So in one sense we are all guilty. I do not seek to appear at the Dispatch Box either in the role of prophet or wearing a white sheet. We all made serious errors and it would be wise to remember this before flinging allegations across the Floor of the House.
If we are to deal with energy and electricity supply we must avoid a return to the disastrous three-day working week. We must instead turn to the kind of economy that we have created. We must also consider that, even though these increases in the price of electricity mean substantial extra payments for pensioners and the chronic sick, the Government are taking steps to assist those categories.
I am sure that hon. Members will be keen to hear what the assistance will mean as regards additional heating for the elderly. I asked that the figures should be produced so that the House could be informed. Supplementary benefits—extra heating additions—are given in cases where the recipient is in poor health or lives in bad accommodation. There are three categories and they reflect different degrees of severity of these circumstances. The appropriate additions are at present 30p, 60p and 90p per week. My right hon. Friend announced that after the July increases these rates will become 40p, 80p and 120p. I hope that hon. Members will return to their constituencies and assist people to obtain these additional benefits.
In the course of a debate such as this a Minister cannot reply to all the points. The hon. Member introduced the debate in a constructive manner. I assure him that if there are any matters to which I


have not replied and on which he would like a reply I will certainly write to him.

HOMELESSNESS (LONDON)

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: This is the second occasion this week when I have felt moved to bring to the attention of the House the enormous problems of housing in Greater London. On Monday, Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to catch your eye in an attempt to advance arguments in support of the GLC's proposals to spend considerable amounts of money on necessary muni-cipalisation of housing stock in order that many of the problems which I shall seek to identify today should receive an early remedy.
Because of the profundities of parliamentary procedure—and I confess that I became submerged in a sea of incomprehension that evening—I understand that, with both Front Benches happy at the result, we are due to resume the debate at an early stage. I regret the delay, from whichever cause, because it seems to me that problems of London housing and homelessness deserve the greatest priority on the part of my Government.
Today I seek to identify in particular the following three points: first, the most disturbing consequences and results of our past failures to provide adequate housing stock in Greater London. Secondly, I seek to make demands upon the Minister for urgent measures to improve the situation. Thirdly, I should like to develop briefly some aspects of the longer-term perspectives which it seems to me are necessary in order that we shall in due course resolve the major housing problems facing this capital city and the country as a whole.
In answer to the first basic question to which inevitably this debate is bound to give rise—how many homeless are there in London today?—one can only answer in a graphic, though somewhat negative, fashion, that no one knows, any more than anyone has even known, how many there are, because there is no easy measure of what homelessness is. Whether one takes the very narrowest definition of all—namely, that we count the numbers who have applied to welfare departments on the grounds of their homelessness, or whether one chooses a much

wider definition, which I personally prefer, that one should count as homeless in our society all those who live in conditions which are so bad that civilised family life is impossible—whichever definition one chooses, can anyone doubt that the numbers in distress are greatly increasing?
There are well-documented causes of homelessness, but in some respects these documented causes are the superficial aspects of the problem. There is clearly the question of evictions—people evicted for such reasons as rent arrears or unauthorised occupancy. There is homelessness born of the fact that social tensions within a family develop, and the break-up of families increases the number of households making a demand upon our housing accommodation. There is the factor that, as always in the past, and presumably as will be the case in the future, and certainly as is the case at present, London provides a magnetic attraction for large numbers of people seeking their fortunes, some perhaps with the optimism of Dick Whittington. Others, perhaps born of the pessimism of the circumstances in which they are living elsewhere, come to London in order to live, and so provide extra dimensions to the problems of housing in the capital city.
The deeper pressures, however, which underlie this causation are the pressures upon the existing accommodation, simply because this accommodation in London has in recent years been increasing far too slowly When one adds to this the compound of inflation which in the matter of house prices has been more dramatic than in any other field of social cost, one sees the development of a housing problem in which the cost of owner-occupation in the capital city is so dramatically high that many people, who in previous decades or as little as five or six years ago could have looked upon owner-occupation as having the potential to resolve their accommodation difficulties, no longer have the resources to qualify for mortgages.
Secondly, there is the well-documented decrease in rented private accommodation which clearly presents particular difficulties in catering for some of the categories of people whom I shall identify as being homeless subsequently in my speech.
Finally, there is the fact that the numbers of houses built by local authorities in the London area over recent years have been far too few. Indeed, last year —and these figures were reflected in the debate on Monday—the number of council houses built was lower than for a decade past. This failure to build sufficient houses in London and to increase the housing stock has greatly increased the degree of homelessness in the city.
When one is talking about homelessness one is not talking just of the 19th century perspective of the vagrant, the individual drifting into the capital city and finding himself without a home. As the Shelter report of 25th April-1st May says,
The typical London homeless family is a head of household aged about 26, a mother and one or two children living on about £33 per week gross, and paying over £6 a week for one room in Brent, Lambeth or Wandsworth, or sharing with friends or relatives. Such a family is typical of the 9,473 London families who approached the Shelter Housing Aid Centre in 1973. 
The report explodes many popular myths about homeless families. Only one in five families had three or more children. Half the families interviewed had lived in London for 10 years or more. 42 per cent. of families had no tenure of their own, they were literally without a home, or crammed in with friends or relatives. 25 per cent. had their own place but were threatened with eviction, and 15 per cent. were in sub-standard or overcrowded accommodation.
Clearly, what that report identifies is that one is talking about homelessness not in the context of a shifting population necessarily, not in terms of some of the categories of the past but in terms of the dimensions of the social problems which have emerged greatly over the past decade. Despite the fact that I seek to demonstrate that it is homeless families who provide many of the difficulties in London, one should also recognise that the problems of the single homeless individual are also very intense. Long-term social changes which cause, for example, individuals at an earlier stage in their own lives to strike out afresh and leave the family home create pressures upon the housing stock as they themselves become separate household units.
The most obvious category but by no means the most numerous is that of students. I greatly welcome the expansion of higher education, and we all recognise that it is producing great advantage

to many of our young people. Basically, however, it has taken place without any significant attempt to recognise the enormous social problems involved in terms of housing, for example, which quite clearly will be with us over the next decade. If the Government remain committed to anything like the targets outlined in the White Paper of December 1972—and I regret the degree of backsliding that those figures represent—very large numbers of students will be setting up their own households.
The pressure is very intense in London, where the institutions of higher education are numerous and renowned. In this context I welcome the development, for example, in Lewisham of co-operative ownership of student dwellings, in which Housing Corporation funds have been imaginatively put towards providing 152 student dwellings.
We have to recognise, however, that we must think much more extensively than this small start. We have to cope not merely with the problem of student accommodation but with increasing demands for single-person accommodations. We must begin to think of such provision now. It is a well-known truism of the housing problem that it is not that there is an insufficient number of housing units but that so many of the units are of the wrong type or are in the wrong areas. This is a perennial problem. The housing stock is not easy to adjust to changing social patterns. One can discern certain pressures ahead as a result of Government policies, and we must recognise that aspects such as education policy must be closely related to those of accommodation and housing.
Concern is being expressed in many informed quarters in London about the transfer of responsibility for accommodation for the homeless from the social service departments to the housing departments. This was and remains a controversial decision, and the move needs to be carefully monitored to ensure that the transfer works to the best advantage of those most in need.
Many individuals are expressing concern about the existing situation, particularly when social service departments are having increasing responsibility placed upon them—for example, their role in community welfare for the mentally


handicapped. The concern is that the departments are losing a crucial control over housing accommodation. The problem may be readily resolved by the fruitful co-operation which exists between departments in the best authorities, but it must be recognised that such co-operation is not always forthcoming in every local authority in Britain, or even in London alone.
Homelessness is one of our most appalling temporary social problems in London. In identifying that problem we are asking the Government to ensure that the long-term trends, which require imaginative housing developments, are carefully considered and that the planning is carried out now in relation to our housing stock. Secondly, careful attention must be paid to how the homeless are to be housed by the local authorities within their relative responsibilities.
I am grateful for this opportunity of re-emphasising to the Government that many of us consider that in London housing is our greatest social problem.

2.35 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in a debate on one of the most serious problems affecting inner London and many other parts of the capital—homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. North (Mr. Davies) mentioned some of the causes and dealt briefly with the definition. I shall try not to repeat too much of what he said, but it is difficult for any London Member to follow another London Member and avoid repetition because the problems are so widely spread throughout the London area.
Many of us must be heartened by the attempts recently made by the Greater London Council on the initiative of Alderman Paddy O'Connor, to do something about one of our most serious problems —that of the real homeless, the down-and-outs, the drop-outs, and in many cases students and others who nightly sleep rough because there is no alternative. I want to pay tribute to what Alderman O'Connor and his GLC comrades have done in this respect.
It is a sad reflection on all of us, when we think about the Charing Cross Hospital venture, that Sir Reginald Goodwin

and the GLC are having almost to go round with a begging bowl to get the finance to keep the hostel, as the hospital has become, going to deal with some of our worst problems. I understand that the cost will be about £100,000 a year. When we consider what is spent in many other directions, that is a small price to pay for the kind of service being organised by the GLC.
I hope that the financial factor will be considered by the Government with a view to much more aid being given to that project and others like it. A few hours from now, scores of men and women throughout London will be taking up their positions on the street, 1ying on newspapers and covered by them, because there is nowhere else for them to go.
We tend to think that so many of the people sleeping rough are down-and-outs and drop-outs, and some of them are, Many of them, however, are hardworking men and women who have been illegally evicted—dehoused—as a result of an improvement or conversion scheme which has left no room for them. Again, sadly enough, many single people, young and not so young, are in need of housing. They have no qualifications for council housing. They literally have nowhere to go when events overtake them. I ask for more purpose-built structures like the Charing Cross project, financed from the national Exchequer, in order to help us to deal with these problems.
There are a number of examples where the loss of accommodation is adding to the problems of inner London, and I am in the unhappy situation of representing an area in which there are examples of every category of homelessness. If hon. Members think of a new category, I can show them an example of it. Well-known and traditional hostels like the Rowton Houses are being closed. I believe that there are now only about two or three of them left. Others have been converted into hotels and are now let or are occupied by students and others. They were previously occupied by homeless men, and in some cases, women. That lost accommodation has never been replaced.
My hon. Friend mentioned the large number of educational institutions in inner London. Places in those institutions are much sought after by students from all over the world, and when they


arrive they bring with them the problem of homelessness. Those who are fortunate are catered for by rapacious landlords who can earn a great deal of money by letting accommodation on a short-term basis. This practice is to the detriment of the homeless because of the circumstances in inner London. Many more units of accommodation are being let in that way because of the short-term gains.
Another point concerns the shift of responsibility for the problem of homelessness from the Department of Health and Social Security to the housing departments. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the restoration of the statutory function. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will remember that earlier this year I moved an amendment to try to prevent this statutory duty on homelessness being taken away from the local authorities. Its substitution by a ministerial directive has been another element in creating hardship and homelessness. This is a recognised fact among the bodies which help the homeless. They are convinced that that action had a detrimental effect on the services provided for the homeless.

2.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I intervene simply to say that my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself share the very real concern about homeless families which exist throughout the Greater London area. The problem has been growing faster in the last few years and different solutions have been put forward as to how it can be dealt with. Possibly there is no absolute answer, but that should not deter anybody from trying as best they can to meet the human problems that exist. I feel particular concern, possibly because I am the father of a growing family, for young people who want to marry and form their own families. The situation in London at present means that it is becoming well-nigh impossible.
It is very difficult to understand why the problem should exist since we know that the population of the capital is declining substantially and, even with a constant housing stock, accommodation should become easier. In fact, the housing stock has grown, so there seems to be an inconsistency in the situation.

The studies which have been conducted, particularly by Shelter, show large areas of under-occupation in the Greater London area, even in areas of the greatest housing stress. There was a report recently about Islington. In spite of the overcrowding and multi-occupation, there is a vast pool of unused accommodation. Local authorities and private landlords are in this position, and, therefore, we possibly need a re-examination of the whole question of under-occupation of property and consideration whether people with spare accommodation might not be encouraged to bring it on the market.
I am not sure that sending the bulldozer into areas to make way for new housing estates is necessarily the right answer. A much better idea is the provision in the Conservative Housing and Planning Bill, now the Housing Bill, for the declaration of housing action areas to maintain communities as they are, salvaging, resuscitating and modernising structurally-sound buildings which can be made damp-free and provided with modern conveniences. We welcome the conversion of the old Victorian homes, built for families with huge staffs of servants but no longer appropriate to our circumstances, into reasonable-sized homes required by families today. That is one direction in which we should bend our efforts; with the declining population we can probably achieve more, far more quickly and more economically than in any other way.

2.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) for introducing this debate, because the problem of homelessness is serious and growing. It is only right that the House should spend time reviewing what has been done and what more can be done to ease the plight of those who find themselves in this dreadful predicament. When we refer to single homeless people we are not talking of a homogenous group. It covers many different types within it ranging from those whose only problem is finding a place to stay to those who could not live under a roof without care and help.
There is the failure to provide stock. No man is an island in this situation, and


it is not possible to consider the problem in isolation from the general housing situation. There is an inter-relationship which cannot be ignored. Less family housing might mean more competition between families and single people for what is available with the latter being squeezed out. It might equally mean that families could be squeezed out by single people clubbing together to share what could be accommodation for a family.
It is right to bear in mind the general housing problem and what the Government are doing about it. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that he shared the concern which exists about the homeless. He asked why the problem should exist. There is no denying that the problem exists mainly because of the housing situation. I do not need to rehearse the facts of what can only be described as the complete collapse of the house building programme during the first years of this decade, at a time when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government.
In 1970 there were 350,000 completions, including 180,000 in the public sector. In 1973 the total was down to 24,000, with only 107,000 in the public sector. We mean to remedy the appalling shortage of homes to rent and to buy at reasonable prices and have set housing as one of our main priorities.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman talks of the collapse of the housing programme at the beginning of this decade. Does he agree that when his party took office in 1964 it inherited a building programme of 400,000 houses a year which had been reduced to 200,000 when the Labour Government left office in 1970?

Mr. Brown: I am not prepared to say that we in the Labour Government were satisfied with our record of completions. However, in view of the disastrous fall in the programme at a time when there was plenty of building labour and building material available no alibi can be put forward for the Tory Party's record in the last three and a half years.
We have already taken decisive action to boost the provision of council houses. We have no doubt that the only way forward in cheap rented accommodation is by social ownership. We have made an additional £350 million available to allow

local authorities to press forward with new contracts, with acquiring new but unsold houses from developers, and with buying unrented property in the worst areas of housing stress. We have also taken steps to freeze rents for the rest of this year, and we have taken action to hold down mortgage rates. Which hon. Member would be bold enough to say that we would not have a 13 per cent. mortgage rate now had it not been for the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?
We shall soon introduce a long overdue measure to give security of tenure to many furnished tenants. This will be of particular help to single people, many of whom are furnished tenants, and we hope that this will prevent many from becoming homeless who might otherwise have found themselves on the streets.
We have other important measures in preparation—not least a radical new Bill to replace the Housing Finance Act 1972. However, to round off the picture for the purpose of the present debate, I mention only the Housing Bill, which is now in Committee. It provides for a great strengthening of the voluntary housing movement, for the establishment of housing action areas in the worst areas of housing stress, and for a new look to the financial arrangements for improving existing housing. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey that if a house is sound it is better to bring it up to modern standards than to demolish it, as we have tended to do in the postwar years.
Of particular relevance to today's debate is the fact that the Housing Bill includes new measures to help hostels. I shall return to this point.
I wish to mention the question of the reimposition, if there is to be a re-imposition, of a statutory duty on housing authorities for housing the homeless. This point was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North tabling an amendment to the Local Government Bill to do precisely what both my hon. Friends have suggested. As this question does not fall directly within my responsibility, may I simply say that I understand that an amendment has been, or is to be, tabled to the Housing Bill


in Committee. I suggest to both my hon. Friends that that is the best place to pursue the matter.
I turn to the question of Charing Cross Hospital. At the end of last year the Greater London Council asked whether the vacant part of the hospital could be used to relieve the problems of homelessness in London. After a series of helpful meetings and discussions, the Secretary of State agreed that, subject to certain conditions, part of the property should be made available to the GLC at a nominal rent—I stress "a nominal rent" —to be used as a hostel for men referred from recognised agencies.
I understand that the GLC has arranged for the St. Mungo Community Trust—a voluntary association well versed in these matters—to run the hostel, and it is now in occupation. The trust does an excellent job, and I am sure that it will go a good job at Charing Cross. The number of men to be accommodated is uncertain as a good deal of work is needed to bring it up to the required standard. But the places likely to become available should make a helpful contribution to the provision of accommodation for men without a home of their own. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect to be given in a short debate of this type a definitive answer on costs or a firm commitment. I shall consider the question he has raised.
Many other points worthy of answer have been raised, and I apologise that I cannot, in the two minutes remaining to me, answer all of them. However, if there is any point which I should have answered but have not answered, I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North about it.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North for raising this most important topic. The Government recognise the seriousness of the problem, and we are determined to do all we can to combat it. We are heartened by the GLCs initiative and by the response of the London Boroughs Association to the problem of homeless single people. The voluntary bodies have led the way for many years, and the Government—and, I am sure, the London Boroughs Association—will continue to support their work. It will take a com-

bined and determined effort by central Government and local government, in conjunction with the voluntary organisations, to alleviate to any appreciable extent the problem of homelessness among single people in London.

SCHOOL TRANSPORT

2.59 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley: In the few short weeks of the present Parliament, many hon. Members on both sides have expressed their concern about and interest in school transport following publication of the working party's report on the subject at the end of last year. Those hon. Members include the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), whom I am glad to see present.
The House presents a somewhat threadbare appearance at this stage of the afternoon, but although the subject may not make quite such compulsive viewing as that of Members' interests I am certain that this debate will be read very widely.
Since 1944 we have worked a system of assisting children going to school on the basis that those outside a distance within which it is possible to walk to their nearest school can travel free by public transport, whereas those within a defined walking limit have to walk and do not receive the benefit of any assistance.
The walking limits have been defined as three miles for those aged eight and over and two miles for those under eight. With the one exception of legislation passed in 1948, when local education authorities were given discretionary power to assist the transport of any child to school if they felt it reasonable to do so, there has been no further change in the law. The working party's report brings out the fact that the discretionary power has been used to a relatively limited extent. Only 10 per cent. of the total cost of subsidies towards school transport has been applied on the discretionary basis. Local education authorities are fulfilling their statutory responsibilities to provide free transport for those outside the mileage limits but are not doing much else.
We all agree that there are major defects in the present system. I wish to highlight three. First there is the grave inflexibility created by the two-mile and


three-mile limits. Secondly there is the major burden on some parents who are just within the limits and therefore have to bear the full financial costs of getting their children to school. Thirdly, the safety of children walking to school is not taken into account in the present operation of the system of subsidies for school transport.
Clearly the two-mile and three-mile limits have basic, built-in inflexibilities, in the same way as any limit on income for benefits or for tax purposes will have such inflexibilities in the financial sector. As long as there is a limit, it will be beneficial to those just outside and unsatisfactory, and apparently unfair and anomalous, for those who live just within the limits and therefore have to bear the full cost of getting their children to school.
I should like to give an illustration of that. I do not suggest that it is typical but it is worth citing. A group of parents on the outskirts of Tonbridge, in a village called Hildenborough, came to the conclusion that although they were designated as being within the three-mile limit they were in fact outside it. They were so concerned that they obtained the services of a local solicitor, who pressed their case with the local education authority. Being a man of the most conscientious frame of mind, he obtained a measuring wheel from the district council and walked with it from the children's school to their homes. He decided that all the houses were just outside the limit, at distances of between 60 yards and 200 yards beyond the limit.
The Kent Education Authority was notified. No doubt some consternation was caused when the solicitor's letter was received. The authority then inspected its own measuring device and, aware that its technical reliability might be subject to some doubt, sent it off to be serviced.
I understand that the latest position is that the education authority has notified the parents that its own measuring wheel has been brought up to a new high pitch of technological perfection, and the stage is set for a wheel through the streets of Tonbridge, with the education authority's wheel wheeling against the solicitor's wheel. I very much hope that the Minister will be at the finishing line,

because there is a serious possibility that one wheel will give a figure of more than three miles and the other will give a figure of less than three miles. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be there to advise us which wheel is producing the correct answer. That illustration—I do not suggest that it is typical—indicates the extreme anomalies and absurdities that arise out of the present strict two- and three-mile limits, and that is something to be pondered.
Then there is the burden of the cost to parents. The great bulk of assistance with school transport is provided through helping children who go to school by bus, for very few go to school by rail. As we are all aware, over the past 10 or 15 years the economics of the bus industry have come under increasing pressure. From about 1960 there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the total number of bus journeys, but that reduction has been accompanied by the peak demand remaining more or less static This has put bus companies in a highly uneconomic situation, because they have had to maintain a peak service while overall demand has been declining.
This has directly affected the ways in which bus companies are able to provide the assistance which up to now has often been given to children travelling to and from school. Most bus companies have had a system of concessionary fares for children but increasingly, because of the economic pressure, the bus companies have had to water down those concessions to children during the peak hours, and in some areas, such as my constituency, they have found it necessary to abolish all forms of concession to children during peak hours.
The children are facing the prospect of having to pay the full adult fare if they go by bus. Taken over the whole year, this represents a considerable expenditure. In my constituency—I imagine that the example is mirrored throughout the country—a child travelling almost three miles to school will be spending about £1 a week on bus fares. Taken over the school year, that is about £38. Assuming that that is provided out of taxed income, it represents about £50 a year of gross untaxed income. For a parent with two children, the gross cost is therefore about £100 a year.
Figures of that sort pose two serious questions. First, the burden of the expenditure bears no relation to ability to pay. It is a straight charge and there is no means by which the poorest families can avoid it, other than by sending their children to school on their own two feet. Secondly it is questionable whether burdens of this sort, certainly when they are of this magnitude, should be a feature of an education system which we are proud to regard as essentially free.
I appreciate that the cost of providing assistance to schoolchildren is already about £40 million a year and that it is probably not possible to think in terms of totally free transport to school. But we must get away from a position in which the poorest families facing this sort of financial burden are left with no alternative but to allow their children to walk to school and back, which represents a walk for children over eight of about six miles a day, a pretty fair stretch, particular in city areas, where there is a major problem of safety, and I come to that next.
Walking distance between a child's nearest school and home for the purpose of assistance with school transport was defined in the case of Shaxted v. Ward in 1954 as
the shortest available walking route ".
That provides the criterion against which a family is decided to be within or outside the three-mile limit.
It will be apparent, however, that the shortest route is not necessarily on safety grounds the most desirable route for a child to take on his own two feet. The shortest route may involve walking along roads on which there are no pavements. It may involve taking a route where there are particularly dangerous traffic junctions. It may involve a route along which there is open land or woodland where parents may feel that there is the risk of children being assaulted. So the shortest route is not necessarily the most desirable one.
It may be the case that children are told by their parents to take a longer route simply on safety grounds and, therefore, it is possible in the present system that a child is walking to school, taking a longer route and walking further than a child who is carried by bus, and

carried free, because his home is situated just beyond the three-mile limit. Clearly there are great difficulties and some inequities in the fact that the issue of safety is not taken into account in the present system.
As for solutions, about which I hope the Minister will make some comments today, it seems that there are two main avenues of approach to improve the present position. First, we can simply reduce the mileage limits, bringing them down by one mile so that the three-mile limit is reduced to two miles and the two-mile limit to one mile. The working party's report considers this possibility and costs it. It would mean something like £7 million a year on top of the £40 million bill already paid to subsidise school transport. The working party dismisses this option on the grounds that it would not produce the thorough-going solution which is necessary to evolve a more rational and fairer basis of providing assistance with school transport.
The solution advocated by the working party which I believe should receive serious consideration is the introduction of a flat-rate charge for taking children to school which would be paid by parents regardless of the distance travelled. I believe that this has some merits. First of all it has the merit that, by being on a flat-rate basis, it provides some guarantee that those within easy walking distance from their homes to their schools have no financial incentive to use public transport which is already under considerable pressure at peak hours.
With a flat-rate charge it is also possible to mitigate or even to abolish it altogether where parents cannot afford the charge because of their financial circumstances. The working party proposes that initially this should be done on the basis that those families which qualify for free school meals should also qualify for exemption from the flat-rate charge for school transport.
The third merit is that, with a flat-rate charge, the onus is put on the parents to choose between paying the flat-rate charge, requiring their children to walk to school, or making arrangements for them to be carried to school by car.
The one matter about which I sound a note of caution is that the working party says that although the Secretary


of State should determine the flat-rate charge, the State should pick up the difference between that charge and the commercial rate charged by the bus companies, on a completely open-ended basis. I think that the Treasury will have objections to going down that road and will want to provide a buffer for the subsidy which is implied. But the principle of the Secretary of State providing a flat-rate charge throughout the country has a great deal to commend it.
The working party has done a very thorough and constructive job in examining the problem of school transport. I hope that it will not be long before the Government are able to consider their reactions to the report and come forward with comprehensive proposals for improving radically on the present system, which has some very unfortunate side effects and considerable inequities.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: I am grateful for this opportunity, if only briefly, to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who has performed a valuable function today in enabling the House to probe the Minister on the subject of this important report.
I am sure that all hon. Members get cases of the kind referred to in the report brought to their surgeries from time to time. I have had two in the last fortnight. It would not be appropriate for me, in the few minutes at my disposal, to go into great detail about them. Indeed, I am still making inquiries about them with the authority. However, they illustrate the difficulties that can arise from the present situation, which, as the working party's report brings out, is antiquated and has not kept pace with changing social feelings about what is or is not proper for children to do in terms of walking to school. It gives rise to an increasing number of anomalies.
One of the cases to which I have referred concerns the transport of a handicapped child for whom an escort is required. So far, I have been told the authority has been unable to provide an escort. I understand that as a result the child is not now going to school. That is a considerable problem for the family and the child. I do not think that it arises from ill will on the part of the

authority; it arises no doubt from the difficulty of knowing what is the best course to take, what it is supposed to do, and whether it can afford the expense.
The second case is of a more classical kind. It arises from the anomalies to which my hon. Friend referred about the mileage rules for children, in this instance compounded by the fact that sometimes a taxi and at others a minibus arrives. Therefore, many children are never certain whether they will have to walk or will get a ride. No doubt the authority is doing its best to sort out the problem. However, it illustrates the irritations caused and the difficulties experienced by the present system and the need for action to be taken on the report.
I want to add only two points to what my hon. Friend said. These relate to my own experience of recent cases in this sphere. First, I hope that the Minister will keep in close touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about policy on this matter. The report brings out the links between some of the problems of school transport and of rural transport generally. Some of the problems that are brought to my attention arise from the inadequacy of rural transport services. It seems important that those two matters should go together, not least because the inadequacy of rural transport services causes great difficulties not only for the parents of schoolchildren but for many other people. I believe that by improving the school transport services it may be possible— for example, by making use of school contract buses to carry other people as well where this would be appropriate— to assist in the improvement of rural transport services as a whole.
Secondly, I should like to mention the cost. My hon. Friend quite rightly touched on this matter. It will no doubt be one of the objections to implementing the report. However, it is unlikely that a significant reform in this area can be carried out without spending more money. I agree with my hon. Friend that the considerable hardship and expense caused to some families could be relieved on the basis of the report.
I do not intend to make a purely party political point about different forms of expenditure. But I hope that the Minister will consider that compared with some


of the expenditure on food subsidies which goes fairly indiscriminately across the board, a certain amount of extra expenditure on school transport, which by definition would go to families with children, who are among those facing the most difficult problems at this time, would be money well spent.
I am grateful for this opportunity of expressing my views on the subject. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I hope that we may also look forward to some action along the lines of the report.

3.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I begin by thanking the hon. Members for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) and Braintree (Mr. Newton) for the reasoned way in which they have raised a complicated and serious problem.
When one thinks of all the improvements that have been made in communications, when one realises that the population generally is much more mobile than ever before, it is astonishing to find that in many areas those who are dependent on public transport are worse served today than people were when I was a boy. I represent a constituency which is about 60 miles across. Many villages in that area are no longer served by public transport, and boys and girls have increasing difficulty in getting to school. The authority is faced with the great and growing problem of rising expenditure which it has to meet to make sure that children are able to travel to school, and I therefore repeat my thanks to the hon. Gentlemen for raising this matter today.
The previous administration was wise to appoint a working party, which has since done a tremendous job. I am sorry that we are still not able to give our conclusions on the report. I do not want to pass the buck in any way, but the House will understand that local authorities have had a difficult time recently with reorganisation, and so on, and I am sorry to say that we are still awaiting comments on the report from some of the local authority associations. I assure the House that, as my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Question, as soon as we have received the views of the interested parties we shall come to our

conclusions and announce them. I hope that the House will not have to wait too long.
We have to bear in mind that down the years it has been recognised that pupils cannot be expected to attend school if their journey to and from school makes impossible demands on them. The provisions of the Education Act 1944, which carry forward broadly the same approach as the 1870 Act, assume that it is reasonable to expect pupils under the age of 8 to walk up to two miles to school, and older pupils three miles. If they live further away than that from their school and no transport is available or no boarding arrangements are made for them by the local education authority, they cannot be expected to attend and their parents cannot be successfully prosecuted for their non-attendance. I emphasise the link between the provision of school transport and the law about school attendance because it is an important link, and without due appreciation of it we cannot understand the rationale for the present provision of school transport or, indeed, some of the reasons why it has been suggested that the basis for such provision should be changed.
It is true, as both hon. Gentlemen said, that the concept of the "statutory walking distance" needs to be modified in the light of present circumstances. It gives rise to great dissatisfaction and frustration on the part of parents who live on one side of the street and are denied transport for their children while those on the other side of the street do not have that problem. They feel that bureaucracy has taken over, and the working party faced that problem. Many pupils living within these distances can and do travel to school on public transport or by car, usually at some cost to their parents, and this has given rise to many anomalies which we are anxious to get rid of.
Another aspect of this question which has given rise to concern is the rising cost of transport provision not only to local authorities but to parents, and sometimes to parents who are least able to bear this extra expenditure. It has almost doubled for local authorities in the last three years in terms of actual prices, and in constant price terms it has gone up by a third. This, of course, parallels the rise in bus fares which the parents of those


children who do not receive free transport have to pay, and at the same time the standard of provision in many areas is declining. It is becoming more and more difficult to provide a reliable bus service in some of our rural areas. Many buses are operating with as much extra loading as the law allows, but with factors such as the increase in the price of oil it may be that these problems will get worse.
There are arguments for leaving the system basically as it is. Local authorities have wide powers to assist with the transport of those pupils who are not statutorily entitled to free transport. The wider use of these discretionary powers, although it is expensive, perhaps very expensive, could go some way towards mitigating the complaints of parents that school transport is not available for many pupils who need it, particularly on grounds of safety. But there would still be some inequity between one parent and another, and costs to the public purse would continue to rise.
The report of the working party is readable and workmanlike, and contains some interesting proposals, to which we are not committed but to which we are giving serious consideration and on which we are awaiting the comments of interested parties. It proposes that the link between school transport provision and the law about attendance should be broken. It considers this link outdated, notably because of the enormous increase in motor transport since 1944. It suggests that questions of distance and the provision of transport should no longer condition the parent's obligation to secure his child's regular attendance at school.
The working party also proposed that the concept of the statutory walking distance should be abolished. It considered it entirely arbitrary to say that a pupil aged 8 or over living 2.99 miles from school did not require free transport but that one who lived just a yard or so further, just over three miles away, was entitled to it. If we altered the distance, there would still be the same frustration and dissatisfaction.
The working party then asked what should be the criteria for assessing eligibility for transport. It looked at various factors, including the safety of the journey and the personal circum-

stances of the pupil and his family, and concluded that no objective criteria could be laid down. It felt that the decision should be left to the local authority and the parent, that the local authority should be obliged to provide transport for any child if the parent requested it and the request was judged reasonable in the light of local circumstances, but that the parent should be charged a flat fare irrespective of distance.
This ingenious solution would, I suppose, solve several problems. That is what the working party alleges, at any rate. The cost to the public purse of school transport would be reduced, there would be greater equity between one parent and another because all would pay the same, and requests for transport over very short distances might be deterred by a flat fare. If the parent felt that special circumstances warranted transport, that would be up to him, as he would have to pay for it himself.
Some of the working party's proposals related to the place of school transport in the provision of public transport as a whole. I agree that we must seriously consider the use of postal buses, school buses on which adults can travel and the like. The working party felt obliged to draw the attention of local authorities to this problem, advocating greater coordination of transport policies in each area, so that the vehicles available, public and private, would be used to maximum efficiency to meet the needs not only of scholars but of the general public.
The problems are essentially problems of safety, equity and cost. Safety plays an increasing part in our consideration of getting children to school and home again. It would be wrong for me to express any view today of the working party's proposals without having seen the comments of the local authority associations. I must emphasise that there is no commitment whatever by central Government or local authorities to any of its proposals.
However, three points seem crystal clear. First, there are no easy or cheap solutions to this problem. If there had been, we should have found them long ago. Second, no solution will please everybody. Whatever we do, some people will feel that we have made the wrong decision. A decision to leave the


present system unchanged would give rise to at least as much dissatisfaction as any decision to change it.
The third point is related to the second: any solution to this problem is bound to involve more expenditure, either by central Government or local government, or by parents, or by some combination of these three. Nevertheless, because of the growing concern and acute hardship felt in various parts of the country, we are considering the problem urgently. The Government will study the working party's report very carefully in the light of the comments of the associations and will take particular note of what has been said this afternoon. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as is reasonably possible.

Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister give an indication whether he will be able to make his statement before the Summer Recess? If he were able to do that, it would be widely welcomed in the House and the country.

Mr. Armstrong:: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give that absolute assurance. However, if it is at all possible, as soon as we get all the comments we shall want to make a decision. The previous administration set up the working party. The report has been around for some considerable time, and I agree that it is time that the House should know exactly what the Government's conclusions are.

AIRE VALLEY (MOTORWAY)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to have the opportunity to enlarge upon the proposed Aire Valley motorway, which is of great concern to many of my constituents. The motorway, if built, will run from the A6038 at Shipley to Snay-gill, near Skipton, a total of 13.2 miles, 10 miles of which is proposed as a four-lane motorway.
It is often said that the need for this proposed road is based on the West Yorkshire Transportation Study—a study that was itself defective because it was limited only to an examination of the growth of car transport.
In the minutes of evidence taken by the Expenditure Committee of the House on 26th June 1972, it was said that
it may be advantageous not to embark on the conventional full scale land use transportation study but to set the more limited objectives on which information is needed for decision and then to design and survey which will accomplish that purpose.
This was the method adopted in the West Yorkshire Transportation Study. It is clear from that evidence that no comprehensive transport study was undertaken. Now that we have a Department which covers land use as well as purely transport, a comprehensive transport study is needed and is more feasible. The data on which to make a sensible decision on this highly expensive project are simply not available.
Only recently, for instance, I asked the Minister three Questions. The Civil Service—presumably, the road construction unit at Harrogate—is apparently keeping the information that I requested a dark secret. I asked the Minister if he would publish
the anticipated level of usage of the proposed Aire Valley motorway and the A650 and A629 in its presence.
I asked the Minister if he would publish
the anticipated level of new traffic generated by the proposed Aire Valley motorway.
I also asked the Minister if he would publish
the details of the anticipated impacts in terms of traffic and environmental implications of the linkup of the proposed Aire Valley motorway with the M62 via M606, the proposed Shipley-Kirkstall and Pudsey-Dishforth trunk roads.
The reply was
Traffic predictions will be provided as necessary in the statement of case for the road at any local public inquiry." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May 1974; Vol. 874, c. 178-9.]
I suggest that the expense involved in maintaining the road construction unit at Harrogate and the thousands of pounds that have been paid out already in compensation for land required along the route of the motorway does not justify secrecy and the retention of information which may assist in an informed debate about the motorway before a public inquiry is held.
The data which have been provided about the motorway are based on 1969 traffic flows, which show on one section a


maximum of 18,101 vehicles in a 16-hour day. For the motorway which replaced the A4 in 1970, the comparable figure was 30,000 vehicles in a 12-hour period. It may be that the figure on the existing A629/A650 trunk road has increased. It would be nice to know whether that is so.
One of the things about which many of my constituents are concerned is the dishonest attempt being made, not by the Government but by the road construction unit at Harrogate, to present this road as a local road to relieve local traffic.
I received a letter only today from the Freight Transport Association Limited— an organisation designed to benefit its members and their private profits, and not the public good—in which it is said:
The Association feels that the construction of the M650 will do much to relieve congestion along A650 through Shipley, Bingley and Keighley, and will contribute o significantly reducing the number of accidents in the three towns.
The association also says that it believes that the construction of the motorway will stimulate industry. There is not one jot of evidence to show that a motorway will stimulate industry in my constituency or in a nearby one. On the evidence of Barnsley, Huddersfield and Preston, there is a strong possibility that industry will decline as a result of the presence of the motorway.
The fact is that the motorway is not part of a plan to relieve local traffic. It is part of a plan for the national network. If this road is approved, the proposed M65 Calder Valley route to Preston will follow, as will the proposed Baildon-Kirk-stall road to join up with the proposed Pudsey-Dishforth route and a link to the Ml.
If this pattern is followed, the Aire Valley motorway, far from being a local route, will become part of the shortest route between the Midlands and Scotland and will be part of a link between the Ml and the M6 at Preston.
Many members of the public are suspicious that, a key section having been approved, the argument will follow that there cannot be a motorway in isolation running from a trunk road at Keighley to a field near Skipton and that the rest of the motorway must follow. As part of a national network, it will attract traffic to it, and the roads around Keighley will bear a huge increase in traffic going on to and leaving the motorway.
In any case, 80 per cent. of the traffic using the existing A629/A650 trunk roads, on the road construction unit's own figures, is local and would be unlikely to be siphoned off to any significant degree by the motorway. During construction, existing roads would be chaotic due to the millions of tons of earth required on the Keighley-Kildwick section. At Silsden there is no provision for traffic to enter the north-bound carriageway, so that the section of the existing trunk road through Eastburn would face an increase in traffic over and above that caused by the construction traffic.
Recently a small girl was badly injured at Steeton. Local residents at Eastburn have agitated for several months for a Panda crossing and have blocked the road on several occasions, but a Panda crossing has not so far been produced. I hope that the Department of the Environment will concentrate on the matter, because it is of some urgency, particularly as accidents are occurring.
The second major point about the motorway is that of expense. Questions which I tabled elicited from my hon. Friend the information that the construction costs would be about £30 million at 1973 prices. In spite of having a Labour Government, I think one would accept that prices have increased slightly since 1973. There will be a further £5 million compensation for obtaining land, plus an untold sum for replacing two secondary schools and various public recreational facilities. So it can be safely assumed that the cost is likely to be in excess of £40 million.
In my view, we cannot afford this expenditure at a time of economic crisis, especially when we have more urgent priorities such as schools and houses to spend money on. For example, in my constituency, which is threatened by the motorway, there are two old schools— Hartington and Swire Smith.
It was expected by the planning people that Hartington School would be replaced in the near future. Consequently, planning consent was given to a factory which now overshadows the old nineteenth century school. It is overcrowded and the playground facilities there are already very limited because of pre-fabricated classrooms which have been erected to take the overspill. The whole position


is now so dark and satanic that the pupils regard the school as their own Colditz.
Swire Smith also requires urgent replacement. It, too, is an old nineteenth century school. The original site which was earmarked for this school is next to a third school—a primary school— but that site has been moved because of the possibility of the motorway and the noise and general intrusion it would bring.
Nevertheless, those two secondary schools, Hartington and Swire Smith, are in urgent need of replacement, and, as we all know, educational expenditure has been curtailed. The primary school, Grange School, will be 240 feet away from the proposed motorway, which will be carried on a 35 to 40 ft. high embankment which will have on top of it a noise barrier to enable the school to function reasonably normally, but I am informed that outside lessons will not be possible because of the noise level from the motorway.
Bingley Beckfoot School, on which £50,000 is being spent, will have to be closed completely, as will the Salt High School, which is a mere 12 years old. No alternative sites have been chosen and no guarantees have so far been advanced about the completion of alternative schools before the existing ones are closed in view of motorway construction.
As a result, the educational panel of the Bradford Metropolitan District Council has registered an objection to the motorway. In my view, educational spending must have greater priority. Since education building remains cut, I must ask the Minister whether he will consider halting any further motorway construction beyond those motorways already in construction or those in the firm programme and already approved.
The cost of motorways has soared from £350,000 a mile for the Ml to the present average cost of £1,500,000 per mile, and the Aire Valley motorway would cost at least double that—£3 million per mile. We have over 1,000 miles of motorway, and, in the view of many people, this is sufficient.
However, one recognises that there are organisations which are devoted to the private profit interest of their members

—organisations like the Freight Transport Association Ltd., and the Roads Campaign Council, which provides, incidentally, a full-time secretary to the all-party road study group in this House, and has provided free trips abroad for several Members of this House in the past. That is something which does not reassure the outside public.
The British Road Federation and the Roads Campaign Council take the view, in a highly expensive and glossy booklet which I received today, that motorways make the countryside look beautiful. This is not a view shared by the Keighley and Craven Group of the Holiday Fellowship, but the interest of this group, of course, is in the countryside and not in promoting private profit of its members.
The Secretary of the Keighley and Craven Group of the Holiday Fellowship has written to me as follows:
We are broadly opposed to the construction of any such new road. The members of this club "—
which is about 100—
have for very many years enjoyed local rambles in the Aire Valley, especially during winter time when the shortage of daylight precludes trips further afield. We feel that the semi-rural nature of the Shipley/Bingley/ Keighley/Silsden part of the valley is an important recreational 'lung' for people living in the towns, and that the construction of a major highway would do grave scenic damage to the area in general, and especially to small-scale but attractive spots …
That is the attitude of a group of people concerned in the countryside in and around the area of this projected motorway.
One cause for concern among people affected by the motorway is that people often write to the Minister and these letters are referred to the road construction unit. This is a group of people dedicated to the construction of the road. When this happens, people feel that the road construction unit is judge and jury in its own cause.
There is a question of compensation. There have been endless rumblings in the Stockbridge area of Keighley. The road construction unit has been buying up houses at compensation levels well below replacement costs and putting people into the houses as tenants. The area has not been adequately maintained because of blight by the proposed motorway, and hence there is a general lowering of


values. The district valuer has placed these low values on the houses, but when people move they have to buy houses in areas which are not blighted and, therefore, they are often placed in an inferior financial position. When people are placed in such a position, they are putting their argument to the unit, and it falls on stony ground. Thus, when appeals to the Minister are referred to the unit people feel often that they have no independent arbitrator to turn to.
I suggest some alternatives. Why cannot there be bypasses for villages like Steeton and Eastburn and towns like Bingley, which have enormous traffic problems. Such bypasses could be built cheaply and quickly and would not soak up the very large amount of land, some of it agricultural, some of it recreational, which will be taken by the motorway.
Secondly, the Minister should undertake to examine the whole transport pattern of Yorkshire and Humberside and the North-West, including railway transport. As I have pointed out, the West Riding Transport Study did not include railway facilities in its arguments and calculations. The railway network of Airedale could be improved for less than one-quarter of the cost of the motorway.
If such an investigation is not forthcoming, I would welcome an assurance by the Secretary of State that he remains totally impartial and uncommitted on the issue within the framework of the Labour Party's policy to concentrate more on public transport and less on private. As a former Minister of Transport said,
Urban roads cause pain and grief by destroying large numbers of homes.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported in  The Guardian on 12th May 1973 as exhorting local labour councils to impose their will on traffic engineers and reject urban motorways which destroyed vast areas of homes. I hope that this is the policy of the Government, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment will not succumb to the blandishments of sections of the Civil Service and the tentacles of the British Road Federation and the Roads Campaign Council, which seem all-enveloping and stretch too far.

3.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on his success in the ballot and on his skill, ability and great vigour in putting his case. It is an extremely complicated one. My hon. Friend has asked many questions. Because of the discipline required of us I may not be able to answer all of them, but if there are any that I do not deal with today I shall deal with them in correspondence.
My hon. Friend referred to the demands for roads which come from particular groups. I accept that there are always pressure groups quite legitimately pressing for particular things. He mentioned two very active groups on questions about roads. Many of our colleagues in this House are very anxious to have better roads in their areas. I spend perhaps more of my time meeting delegations or groups which desire to have roads than delegations or groups which do not desire them, because it has been accepted that roads are frequently one of the ways of preserving certain parts of the environment.
My hon. Friend mentioned Yorkshire and Humberside. In an Adjournment debate last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) deplored the fact that we were not building roads there quickly enough. That is one of our dilemmas.
The history of the proposed Aire Valley motorway—or the Airedale route to give it its correct name, since it would be a motorway from Baildon to Kildwick and an all-purpose trunk road from Kildwick to Snaygill—goes back some time. The improvement of the existing trunk road in Airedale was a possibility for many years. The decision that a completely new road was required was taken in the late 1960s. The previous Labour Government's Green Paper, "Roads for the Future", issued in 1969 for public comment, showed a proposed strategy route from Bradford up Airedale and extending north-west to join the M6 near Kendal. The Conservative Government's programme, which was announced in June 1971 and did not look so far ahead, showed a new road extending from Baildon only as far as a point north-west


of Skipton; and from Baildon the road would extend eastwards towards Leeds instead of southwards towards Bradford. The likelihood of a new road in Airedale has therefore been around for quite a long time.
The present proposals, which are confined to the centre line of the new road and the slip roads, were formally published on 14th December 1973. Exhibitions were held in January and February at a number of places in the area. So far rather more than 4,000 objections have been received. Further draft orders, providing for the alteration of side roads and compulsory purchase of the land required, will be published only if and when the centre line of the new road is fixed.
There is no doubt about the need for some improvement over the existing highway facilities in Airedale. The existing trunk road passes through the built-up areas of Shipley, Bingley and Keighley. Within Airedale the greater part of it is subject to speed restrictions. There is serious traffic congestion and delay, with traffic flows at saturation level on certain sections. This has a most serious effect on the environment of the communities along the route. The accident rate is three or four times greater than for similar roads in West Yorkshire.
In looking at the proposals for the Airedale route, however, we have been very much aware of two factors: first the need to remember the possible future growth of travel demand, and secondly, the possible impact of a shortage of oil.
The level of road traffic has increased substantially for many years. There was a marked falling-off in the immediate aftermath of the recent fuel shortage, but there has been some recovery since then. The Department is looking to see whether higher prices for fuel will affect travel demand. Over the time span that we must think of in talking of the road programme, it seems reasonable to expect some continued growth.
Unless a new road is provided in Airedale, one of two things will happen. Either the existing roads must be improved—this would cause major disturbance to people and property, particularly in the extensive urban areas—or some of the traffic will divert to other

roads, less suitable for heavy traffic flows, causing congestion, delays and increased hazards.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the railways in the Labour Party programme. I can assure him that there is absolutely no change in our attitude to that adopted in opposition when our transport strategy was first expounded. He also mentioned housing. I deeply regret the effect on dwellings, but that is inevitable if the road is to serve the purpose for which it is designed.
The proposed route has been criticised on the ground that it would require the demolition of two schools. Shipley Salt grammar school and Bingley Beckfoot grammar school. I realise that the Bradford Metropolitan District Council will now have responsibility for this, and we are awaiting the council's response to the invitation to comment on the published proposals. My hon. Friend mentioned the Grange School at Keighley, and I must correct one of his points. He said that it would be overshadowed by a 40 ft. embankment. My information is that that is not so. The motorway would be 300 ft. from the school and 8 ft. below it. An 8-ft. noise barrier would be erected at the side of the road.
Before the proposals were formally published on 14th December 1973 a large number of alternative routes were considered between Baildon and Keighley. These fell into two categories: those in the valley and those following the higher ground to the north or south. The alternative routes in the valley were rejected because of the serious effects which they, together with the associated interchanges and link roads, would have on residential and industrial property and on recreational areas. The alternative routes on the higher ground would greatly extend the accesses to townships in the valley and involve long, steep gradients which would be a deterrent to heavy vehicles. In either case much of the present traffic would be left on the existing trunk road, which would therefore still require extensive improvement in the near future.
My hon. Friend has asked whether the Secretary of State would publish details of those alternative routes. The difficulty is that this would only add to the blighting effects inevitably caused by publication of the current proposals. But it is of course open, and it always has been,


to anyone to submit an alternative route to the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend has also asked the Secretary of State whether he would arrange to publish pollution levels likely to be produced by the proposed Aire Valley motorway. This is unfortunately not practicable. The degree of atmospheric pollution depends not only on the volumes and types of traffic but also on weather conditions and the local topography. It is in any case quite possible that net atmospheric pollution in the valley will be reduced because slow-moving traffic on the existing trunk road would be largely replaced by free-flowing traffic on any new road built.
A great deal of information about existing traffic flows in Airedale was published by the North Eastern Road Construction Unit earlier this month. I understand that my hon. Friend has complained, as he complained today, that the figures are based on information obtained in 1969. It is true, as the published information made clear, that much of the data was obtained in an origin and destination survey carried out in the summer of 1969. Origin and destination surveys are mammoth exercises which cannot be carried out every year or so; nor is this necessary. As long as the general traffic flows are regularly monitored, it is easy to extrapolate the up-to-date figures. This has been done, and the results suggest that traffic in Airedale is still increasing. Further monitoring is taking place to ensure that changes in traffic pattern are fully taken into account in the prediction of flows.
My hon. Friend has said today, as he said on 3rd April, that many of his constituents are appalled at the low level of compensation proposed for people affected by the new route. I told him that I had received no evidence from any source that compensation was inadequate and that I should be only too pleased to consider any information which had been given to him.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend accept that the letter listing a particular case was sent to him, and it subsequently turned up at the North Eastern Road Construction Unit at Harrogate?

Mr. Carmichael: I shall look into that point, but my hon. Friend should bear

in mind that the question and amount of compensation is always determined by a valuation officer of the Inland Revenue. Few of the thousands of people whose cases are dealt with in this way seem to be dissatisfied.
Owner-occupiers who are displaced from residential accommodation are entitled to whatever is the current market value of their properties as though there were no road proposals. They are also entitled to legal and reasonable removal and other expenses. Provided they have lived in the accommodation for at least five years, owner-occupiers will also be entitled to a home loss payment of three times the rateable value, subject to certain minimums. Owner-occupiers of low-value property may well be helped by the provision of suitable local authority accommodation, or the local authority may grant special mortgage loans.
Owners and owner-occupiers of residential properties which are not required for the works and which have a rateable value not exceeding £2,250 may claim compensation for—

It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint made by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Member for Bristol, South-East, on 24th January 1974 in the last Session of the last Parliament, and referred to the Committee of Privileges on 25th January 1974, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.— [Mr. Walter Harrison.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS (DECLARATION)

Ordered,
That Mr. Cant, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, Mr. Hall-Davis, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. W. H. Johnson, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Mr. Simon Mahon, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. James Prior, Mr. Frederick Willey, and Dr. Michael Winstanley be Members of the Committee.—  [Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—  [Mr. Thomas Cox.]

HOUSING (TOWER BLOCKS)

4.1. p.m.

Sir George Young: As the tallest Member of the House, I feel that it is wholly appropriate that I should raise the question of tower blocks, although I hope that in my later years I shall not be responsible for the same neuroses.
My hon. Friends and I are often reminded by Labour Members that Centre Point symbolises all the defects inherent in our basic philosophy. We are told that it is an inescapable monument to the greed and inefficiency of the capitalist system.
The tower block is the Socialist "Centre Point", a monument to the short-sighted and rather doctrinaire paternalism of so many city fathers. The trouble with this country is not so much that Centre Point is empty as that the tower blocks are full. More seriously, I find it a matter of regret that although Centre Point has frequently engaged the attention of the House, and has now triggered off legislation, the tower block has never been debated, nor are there any proposals to remedy the acknowledged problems it has caused, although they are of infinitely greater importance, as nearly 500,000 families now live in them.
With the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), I hope to outline the problems caused by this form of construction and coax from the Minister an acknowledgement that his Department is alive to the issues we raise and has positive proposals to put matters right.
That tower blocks are an economic and social disaster is conceded by the fact that no more are being built. I should like an assurance from the Minister that loan sanction will not be given for any more should any applications be made.
However, that would be a small consolation to the 500,000 families, more planned against than planned for, who will have to live in them in an inadequate, artificial and often rapidly deteriorating environment. A survey of one estate in my constituency revealed that only 10 per cent. of those in it actually wanted to live

in a tower block. The other 90 per cent. wanted to live in a house in a street. Only 4 per cent. of the tenants thought that the general appearance of their estate was either good or excellent, while about three-quarters thought that the appearance was poor or deplorable.
That the accommodation itself, narrowly defined, is an improvement on what many of them previously enjoyed I do not dispute. But we have totally failed to provide the necessary adjuncts to go with that accommodation without which normal community life is impossible, particularly for children.
The planners have built what they are pleased to call accommodation units, but they have not built what I call homes. They have extinguished the fire of community life in the back streets of our cities and failed to rekindle that fire on the new estates.
The issue is simple. Shall we do what they are now having to do in America, which is to pull down the tower blocks long before their useful life has expired because they have been unable to arrest the downward spiral on them, or shall we wake up to the problems on these estates while there is still time and, as a matter of urgency, try to correct them? Every member of the local authority that built one tower block estate in America voted in favour of its demolition only 20 years after it had been built. Many of the diseases that infected that estate, fatally as it turned out, are now showing their symptoms on our estates, and I refer hon. Members to an article in  The Guardian of Wednesday 15 th May for an analysis of that estate and its problems.
What, then, is going wrong? I believe that there are many problems on these estates, doubtless all inter-related in a way that some sociologist will be able to explain to me, but let me list them as I see them. First, there is the deteriorating physical environment: litter everywhere, refuse chutes blocked, lifts fouled, graffiti on the walls and on the communal staircase. Going to the shops for many people has become less of a pleasant excursion and more of an obstacle race. One has only to walk round one or two of the less popular estates in London and other cities to see quickly what unacceptable conditions many people are expected to live in.


Secondly, there is a very high incidence of nervous tension and disorders, particularly among young mothers trying to bring up children in an environment where they simply do not stand a chance, and we are all used to seeing these mothers in our surgeries. The problem was well summed up by  The Times on 6th March:
There is overwhelming evidence that towers are unsuitable for children. The isolation has harmful effects on them, which has been pointed out by the NSPCC among others.
Children living on these estates are a constant source of worry to their mothers. Either they are totally isolated in the flats, or they are playing in an unsuitable and often dangerous environment outside. Unless the mother stands on a balcony with a pair of binoculars in one hand and a loud-hailer in the other, it is difficult for her to keep in touch with her children. The nervous diseases suffered by the mothers are well documented. They have a ripple effect on normal family life and on the children's upbringing.
Thirdly, I detect social polarisation on the more difficult estates. As the more articulate and better-off citizens are able to leave these estates, their places are taken by others who have no alternative. Forty per cent. of the population on one estate in West London have criminal records, and concentrations of this order in one area are hardly healthy for the rest of the community.
That leads to the fourth point, which is the increased vandalism, often caused by younger children. We have all seen the broken windscreens, the trees ripped up, the lifts jammed, old people terrorised and flats broken into.
In the face of this combination of problems, many local authorities are regrettably surrendering. Caretakers become impossible to recruit and to keep, so standards of maintenance and management decline. Ordinary families are not offered accommodation on some estates in case they become adversely affected by the environment and a further burden on the overworked social services. This accelerates the imbalance that I have described.
As fast as the local authorities repaint the walls, replant the trees, repair the windows remove the piles of refuse, tidy

the open space, repair the lift, the abuse is repeated. The areas become tatter than the surrounding streets, and the residents of the estates are looked down on. They find it difficult to obtain credit at local shops or to persuade tradesmen to deliver goods to them. The physical problems have led inexorably to social problems, and we shall not solve the social problems until we have solved the physical.
Of course some people can live in these estates, and I am sure that the Minister will point that out, but the people who cannot cope are the larger families with young children, often with social problems and low incomes, and it is exactly that sort of family that is now being allocated accommodation on the estates.
Some of the problems confronting people living in tower blocks will be described by my hon. Friend. But, by a happy coincidence, this week's local newspaper published a feature on a tower block in my constituency, and I should like to quote one or two comments from my constituents.
One said:
I wish I didn't have to bring my children up here. I would like to have somewhere where the kids just walk downstairs and be outside. No waiting for lifts, or not being able to see them. It's no life for a kid here.
Another said:
Like living in rabbit hutches. I worry all the time about the kids playing outside—one is six and the other is 12 and I can't keep an eye on them. And I really miss not having a garden. I would much rather live in a house than here.
Another constituent said:
The kids have got nothing better to do —the place is always getting smashed up.
Those are the comments of people living on these estates all over the country. The indication is that once these estates deteriorate beyond a certain point it is almost impossible to rescue them.
Where do the solutions lie? Inevitably we have to talk the language of priorities, and, in my view, the top one should be to rescue the children. Although the research of the Department of the Environment suggests that children should not be housed above the first floor, this is simply not being observed at the moment because the blocks comprise family accommodation. But those estates which are least suitable for children should stop absorbing them, and


other estates in the area which are perhaps more able to absorb children should be dramatically improved until the situation reaches the point where everyone who wants a house and a garden can have one. My top priority is to get out the children and to replace them with students or other single people, with a generous sprinkling of the architects and planners who designed the estates.
Secondly, we must cut into the downward spiral to which I referred earlier and provide the missing physical facilities on the estates. We must also pay for higher standards of management and maintenance. If only we can get people to take a pride in their estates, we shall be half-way there. But we shall do this only if we provide them with the facilities that they expect and are entitled to. The penny-pinching approach of the cost yardstick must be reappraised and the missing infrastructure provided.
It is against this background of the direction in which I believe we should be moving that I come to the letter written to me by the Minister announcing the commencement of some projects designed to solve these problems. One would provide advice on the adaptations that could be made to unpopular estates to make them more acceptable. I should like to know the time scale of the project and whether the finance will be made available to implement the recommendations.
The Greater London Council, which 1 have similarly been importuning on this subject, has now announced its own studies, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that the GLC's studies and those of his Department are properly co-ordinated.
It will be tempting for any Government to say that these problems are the responsibility of local government. In a sense they are right. However, these tower blocks would not have been built on this scale had there not been such pressure from the central Government to build them.
Secondly, after the Ronan Point disaster the central Government stepped in with substantial finance to remedy the deficiencies in the structure. I believe that this provides a precedent for the

central Government providing funds to rectify other deficiencies no less damaging on these estates.
Thirdly, many local authorities simply do not know what to do, and inevitably they look to the central Government for advice and guidance.
For all those reasons, I believe that the Government should take an initiative in this matter and make it clear to local authorities and tenants living on these estates that the Government are concerned about their problems and are determined to do something to put them right.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about this problem. My reason for intervening is that I wish to highlight the fact that this is not only a London problem. It is a national problem and, indeed, an international one.
In the town of Reading there is an area known as Coley Flats which has a series of these blocks, and it gives rise to problems which are typical of those to be found in tower blocks. It is cut off. There is only one road to it, with an occasional bus service. The people who live there think that they are different, that they have been cut off and left out of the area.
People living in flats are very often much more isolated than people who live in houses, and I wish to devote my remarks to the social problems which arise. We have heard about the mothers of small children and the mental strain that they suffer. Then there are the old people who are afraid to use the lifts in case they become jammed, as they sometimes do.
Basically man is an open-air animal, and putting him in a tower block is not providing living conditions which are something between green fields and living in a nice little house.
We look to the Minister to provide additional facilities for these areas. They need more community centres, for example. Community centres are provided by local authorities out of Government resources. Whenever there is


a cut, however, the community centres are not provided. But I should like to see more community centres provided, especially for people who live in these high-rise areas.
I should like to mention particularly fire protection. This is a matter that people worry about, particularly in high rise flats. The increase in the numbers of cars blocking the entrances to tower blocks makes people worry whether fire engines can get to them.
Staffing of nursery provision for young children is another aspect which needs to be looked at.
I have watched "Coronation Street" on television. The programme starts with a shot of a tower block and then the camera pans down to a little street below. I am sure that the programme makers do not believe that everybody wants to live in tower blocks. I believe that they are panning down to the kind of place in which people prefer to live.
An interesting point came to my notice today. Outside Paris there is a district called Sarcell which has had the tower block problem for some years. There is a new disease in France now called  malade Sarcell, which is mental disturbance caused through living in tower blocks. Therefore, this is an international problem. I urge the Minister to look into the problem and to make more money available to improve facilities for the tower blocks in all parts of the country.

4.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): The
hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has raised a subject of great importance. It is a happy coincidence that he has done so on the day that marks the return to this House of his former opponent, now my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The number of people who voted for his Conservative opponent could just about fill a large tower block.
The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) has demonstrated that this problem is not confined to London. My experience as Member of Parliament for Manchester, Ardwick bears that out. During the last Parliament I raised the problems of people living in tower blocks on many occasions.
The hon. Member for Reading, North referred to the need for community centres. I feel a little bitter on that subject, because we were going ahead at West Gorton with a new community centre which was to service an area with two tower blocks. Last December, however, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), made cuts which deprived us of that community centre. It is a matter about which I feel extremely unhappy.
The Ardwick constituency contains a considerable number of tower blocks. It also has a further number of deck access blocks in which the problems are, if anything, as I shall seek to illustrate, even worse. These deck access blocks include what is now, following last week's television programme on BBC-1, the nationally famous Fort Ardwick, which is one of the great decorations of my constituency.
I differ from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton in some respects when he condemns all tower blocks. My experience as a constituency Member dealing intimately with these problems is that high-rise blocks need not necessarily be problem blocks. I have some tower blocks in my constituency—for example Platt Court and Bickerdike Court, which would adorn the poshest neighbourhood of any city in the country. The waiting list for Platt Court could be filled every day of the year if there were vacancies.
Certainly I get complaints, even from those tower blocks, but they are of a specialised kind—for example, that entryphones do not work very well. However, I do not get many complaints.
Why are tower blocks of this kind a success? I shall come to the failures. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton need not fear that I am dismissing what he said. I take his points extremely seriously.
Why are these tower blocks a success? First, they are well designed and excellently finished. They have their own private entrances with entryphones and each resident has a key to the external door so that only residents and their guests or the caretakers can get in. Therefore the lifts, instead of being befouled, full of graffiti, disgusting excreta and so on, are clean and well maintained and work very well indeed.
Secondly, these creditable tower blocks are well landscaped. Platt Court has the most delightful approach, and it can give a tenant pride in bringing visitors to blocks of flats such as that. Thirdly, and this point was validly made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, it is because careful thought has been given to the allocation of tenancies at these blocks of fiats. In many cases they are reserved mainly for old people, with a certain leavening of families without young children. There is, therefore, a minimum of friction between the young and the old, and anybody who knows the problems that arise in these multi-storey developments will realise that that kind of friction is one of the things that one meets.
Other blocks have problems, and Fort Ardwick—or Coverdale Crescent—in my constituency is as good an example as any which thrusts up many of the problems to which both hon. Gentlemen have referred. There are serious problems between the young who live there and who, naturally want somewhere to live and play and the elderly, who equally naturally want peace and quiet.
There are the problems of repairs that need to be done. The very nature of the structure of these tall deck access developments means that the problems are tremendous, because there is vandalism, and the repairs are often not done anything like as soon as they should be.
There is the problem of keeping estates tidy. The litter blows along the windswept corridors up in the air and it leads to a demoralisation of the people living there. I visit these blocks of flats most weekends and I see for myself how fed up people can get with the kind of life that is imposed upon them by the limitations of their environment. The lights can get broken, and that leads to accidents to children, who are as it were marooned in mid-air
.
There is the problem of repairing lifts which vandals regularly put out of action and which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are often fouled. I say categorically that after comparing Fort Ardwick and other similar blocks with those which I have mentioned which are a decoration to my constituency one realises that external lifts in high-rise developments are a

mistake, because it means that children, who do not necessarily live on the estate, have access to them and use them as a kind of adventure playground. It means that drunks can get into the lifts and bother women and girls as they are going home at night.
As both hon. Gentlemen have validly said, in developments of this kind there are problems of morale. I have been into many of the flats in the development to which I have referred. Taking Fort Ardwick as an example, there is no doubt that internally they are extremely nice homes of which anybody can be proud. The tenants take pride in them but they feel that the external appearance and atmosphere diminish their possibilities of leading a placid and trouble-free life. These are real problems, and the hon. Gentleman has been right to bring them before the House today.
Considerable numbers of people are involved. In the last 20 years 14 per cent. of the dwellings built by local authorities were in blocks of five or more served with lifts. It is estimated that at least half of these are potential family dwellings, but the lessons have been learned. Blocks of 10 or more storeys represented 18 per cent. of all tenders approved in 1966 but only 2 per cent. of those approved in 1972. We are therefore left with a problem of some size but a residual one.
I cannot guarantee that no loan sanction will ever again be given for tower blocks. That would be a doctrinaire attitude which the hon. Gentleman, as a member of a party dedicated to enterprise, would greatly deplore. Not all high blocks are to be condemned. Many are an asset to their neighbourhood and are liked by the residents. Nor is it right—I say this in a cross-bench spirit— to lay the responsibility for these tower flats at the door of the Government. No Government, neither Conservative nor Labour, built these tower blocks. No Government manage them: that is done by local authorities. The yardstick, for which the Government are only too responsible, can certainly accommodate sensible landscaping of these developments. Subsidisable allowances are available towards the cost of providing unsupervised play space for new housing schemes.
The providing or improving of play space on existing estates is reckonable for subsidy. I wish—I say this advisedly from this Dispatch Box—that local authorities would take more advantage of the possibilities open to them. On large estates they could get thousands of pounds in subsidy to use in providing playgrounds for people living in these circumstances. Naturally, we recognise these problems and are anxious to help in solving them.
My Department has launched two important studies. The first is a study of children in homes off the ground and the compensatory provision which may be needed if they cannot be transferred to ground level dwellings. The hon. Member referred to this. It was mentioned by the Minister for Housing and Construction in one of his letters to him. I cannot state a time scale. The study is under way. We shall naturally look at it very carefully. I have been discussing it only today with one of the responsible officials, and I am taking a personal interest in it.
I am also taking perhaps a stronger personal interest in the second piece of research that is going on in our Department—this is very much something that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton has in mind—namely, research into the reasons why some dwellings are difficult to let and into how they could be put to better use. In addition, Home Office studies are going on into vandalism on local authority estates.
As I say, we recognise the problems and will look with care at the points that both hon. Members have made. But in the end this is a matter for the local authorities. They have the opportunity to take action to cope with the play space problem on existing estates. Their housing management policies can make a great deal of difference to life on these developments. In defined areas of special social need, grants could be available under the urban programme for a wide range of social projects.
It is important for local authorities to allot flats to tenants who like them and are suited to them. It is absolutely idiotic to put mothers with toddlers seven or eight storeys up in the air when that can be avoided. This has happened in my constituency and I find it intolerable. Local authorities can make life easier by ensuring

that the caretaking service deals speedily with such problems as repairs and breakages. They must do everything possible to keep lifts clean and in working order and to repair them swiftly when they go out of order.
Parking problems must be sorted out. They are a great danger, impeding the convenience of residents and threatening the safety of children. There are problems with communal TV aerials, and other needless irritations. The cleansing departments should deal efficiently and speedily with litter problems. More imagination is needed in providing facilities to make life easier for tenants— wash-houses and launderettes rather than an extra pub to add to the profusion of drinking facilities all around.
Above all, tenants must be given a much greater part in the management of their estates. In London, in particular, the housing shortage means that many high-rise flats will for a long time to come be tenanted by families who, ideally, would prefer to be elsewhere. But even where this is not the case, tenants will feel much happier if they know that what they say counts, that they do not have to wait for an election to complain to their council or parliamentary candidate, that they do not have to organise a petition or march to the town hall to win play space or shopping facilities, that repairs will be done quickly, and that their views of what is needed on their estates will prevail.
Ideally, I should like to see tenants' committees involved in housing management. I certainly believe that tenants' associations should be regarded by housing departments as partners rather than trouble-makers. I work very closely with my tenants' associations, and so should every public representative.
Many people living in tower and high-rise blocks will read or hear of this debate. They should know that Parliament is aware of their problems. They should also know that the Government care deeply about their problems and are ready to play their part in trying to solve them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock till Monday 10th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.